Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-31 00:00:00

NORFOLK ClRCUlT—Norvicff, JULY 29.

DRYSDALL V. MAYSTONE —CRIM. CON.—EXTRAORDINARY
CASE.—This was an action to recover damages against
the defendant for alleged criminal conversation with the
wife of plaintiff. The defendant pleaded first, not guilty ;
and secondly, leave and license. Mr. Sergeant Wells and
Mr. Keane appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Prendergast,
Q.C., and Mr. Evans for the defendant. Tne plaintiff is
employed in a light vessel off the port of Great Yarmouth,
and has been married to his wife, a woman 34 or 35 years
of age, several years. The defendant is a coal-heaver,
reported to possess some little house property in the town,
and is 61 years old. The plaintiff has been in the habit
of leaving his home for two or three months at a time,
while he has gone aboard the light vessel, and hag ha,i
occasional holidays of a month on shore. On the 2nd of
fee ember last the rlw.intiff left for the Vett vessel. and
the son of the defendant stated that on the 13'h of the
same month he went to the hone plaintiff occupied when
he was at home, for some furniture which had been left in
it. It was between six and seven in the evening, said the
witness. My wife went with me. She is a sister of the
plaintiff's wife. When I got to the house, I found the
gate locked. I wanted some of my furniture, and got in
by getting over a wall. The house door was not locked
I got in by the front window, which opened into a room.
There was no light in this room except that which came
from the neighbours' windows. I heard a scuffling noise,
which appeared to proceed from near the fire-place,
and to be the rustling of dresses. My wife brought
a light into the room, and I then saw Mr. Maystone
and my sister-in-law, Mrs Drysdall. She was then
sitting on the sofa. The defendant, my father,
got hold of me and said, 64 You d—d scoundrel,
you have catched me now." I said, " I did not
come particularly to catch you ; I came to take
my things. You ought to have done with your di,graceful
transaction." The plaintiff's wife was still by when that
was said, but did not say anything. The defendant said
" This is just what we wanted,. Matilda, we wanted to be
found out." She was still sitting on the sofa, but did not
speak. About a month afterwards she went to the de-
fendant's house. I have seen her go into it with him and
lock the door, but I have only seen this once. I have seen
her standing outside the door of defendant's house. In
cross-examination by Mr. Prendergast, this witness said :
My father and me were always on good terms, and never
had an angry word. I have been before the magistrates
on a charge of speaking to him in the street. I mean to
say that I was brought up for speaking civilly to him in
the street. We settled it among ourselves by the consent
of the magistrates. The understanding was that I was
never to speak civilly to him again. (Laughter) I did
not write to him about what I believed he was doing.
He knew it was improper himself, and did not want his
" child " to tell him so. Ith aught it was becoming to
catch him if I could. Mr. Drysdall brings this action.
I don't pay a fraction to it. I have no money. Mrs.
Maystone, the witness's wife, gave a corrob)ratiYe evi-
dence, and Henry Rayner, the brother of the plaintiff's
wife, after stating that her husband had behaved kindly to
her, deposed that on one evening in January, he had
observed familiarities pats between the defendant and his
sister,which he did not altogether approve of. He obseverd
them together on the occasion in question in defendant's
house. Other evidence having been adduced to show that
the plaintiff and his wife had up to a recent period lived
comfortably together, Mr. Prendergast addressed the jury
for the defendant, and called witnesses to show
that the plaintiff had not treated his wife
well, and had been unfaithful to her. Lord Campbell
said, whatever might be the result of the case, it afforded
a poor specimen of the manners of Yarmouth. Mr. Pren-
dergast : We could not put Yarmouth on the record, my
lord. (Laughter.) Lord Campbell, in summing up, said
it was a disgusting case. It was lamentable to see indivi-
duals so nearly connected with the parties come forward to
give evidence. The jury must at the same time deal with
the evidence as it came before them. The injury sustained
by the plaintiff, in losing such a wife, must, however, be
very incon:iderable, and very small damages would proba-
bly answer the ends of justice. The jury, after a short
consultation, found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages,
one farthing. Lord Campbell : I agree with the jury, I
think they have come to a very proper conclusion.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—NEWCASTIA ON TYNE, JULY 28.
SENTENCE OF DEATH ON A WIFE BEATER.—John Harris,
one of the men who broke out of Newcastle gaol, a wild
violent.locking man, was this morning charg d before
Baron Watson, with cutting a wounding Catherine Robson,
a young woman, with whom he had cohabited about eight
months. It appears that he hl.d beaten the unfortunate
young woman on several occasions, and ;that he had
inflicted a considerable ,gash on her throat with a razor on
the 10th June, because she had disturbed him in going to
bed. On the 2tith she was sitting nursing a child, when
he ordered her to go for some tobacc3. She said she hid
snne, which she gave to him, and that she would buy him
more when that was done. He immediately rose from his
seat, and seiz;ng, a poker, knocked her down by a blow on
the head, and taking a razor from his pocket he attempted
to cut her throat. She, however, defended herself, and
shielded her throat with one of her arms, which the pri-
soner severely gashed with the iazor. A man named
Shields was attracted to the room by her cries, and he
1 feed the ruffian off the unfortunate woman, and thus saved
her life. Upon being charged by the police with cutting
and wounding the proeecntrix, the prisoner replied, " 1
am the man. There is blood on my hands. They can
only transport me for lifv. If I had an opportunity

would put an end t 3 her. If I hal done it properly they
would have hung me, and that would have been better."
Medical evidence upon the nature of the wounds inflicted
upon the prosecutrix having been given, the judge summed
np, and the jury returned a verdict of " Cutting and
wounding with intent to do some bodily harm." The
Judge passed sentence of death upon the prisoner, which
will be commuted to penal servitude for life.
WHAT IS A POST LETTER ?—Richard Johnson, 17,
post rider between Lowick and Berwick, was indicted for
stealing a post letter, containing £5B 2s 61 He was do-
fended by the Hon. A. Liddell, and a good deal of ingsnioue
discussion arose on the question, What is a post letter ?
The lad, it seems, while riding between Lowick and Ber-
wick, had bleu in the habit of taking up letters belonging
to country people who met him on the road, and also of
fAchir g in private bags from the lodges of gentlemen's
Beats. On the 27th April, Mr. Gregson bad put £5B 12.36 d
into a letter addressed to the district bank at Berwick,
and enclosed it in another envelope, addressed to the post-
master, with a request that he would send it on to the
bank. It was sent away in the private bag from the
lodge, but never reached Berwick ; and there is little doubt
but that the prisoner stole it ; for though he was a poor
lad, only earning £l2 a-year, immediately following the
disappearance of the letter, several five pound notes were
found in his possession. Baron Watson maintained, in
answer to all the arguments that were alduced to him for
the defence, that as soon as a letter was delivered to a
post-rider or collector, whether it was stamped, or to be
taken to the office to be stamped fir posting, it imme-
diately became a post letter. The prisoner was found
guilty, and was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-SHREW3BURY, JULY 28.

BEFORE MR. BARON MARTIN.

STABBING, &c.—Henry Hamphreys, aged 28, labourer,
was charged with stabbing and wounding Emma Cryle,
with intent to do her grievous bodily harm, on the 10th of
January, at Ludlow. Mr. Corbett appeared for the pro-
secution ; Mr. Cook Evans defended the prisoner. It
appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix that on
Saturday night, the 10th of January last, she went into
a public-house at Ludlow called the Spread Eagle, and
there saw the prisoner and other men drinking. In about
a quarter of an hour she left, and was followed by the
prisoner, who walked with her down the street. They
parted for a short time, and then met again and went
down a dark entry together. Some conversation ensued,
in the course of which it was agreed the prisoner should
give the prosecutrix a shilling. The prosecutrix required
the prisoner to give her the shilling first. bat he refused to
do this and stabbed her three or four times with a sharp
instument in the private parts, kicked her in the back, and
then left her. The prosecutrix said that for a time her
sight went from her, but she got home and received
attention, though the blood did not cease to flow for
several hours. Surgical assistance being procured, she
was admitted to the workhouse, and got well in about a
month. She gave a description of the man who had
wounded her, and several men were taken into custody on
suspicion, but not identified. The prosecutrix remained
in the workhouse for several weeks, and, according to her
statement, after she had come out, in the month of April
last, a man accosted her one Saturday night in the street,
and proposed to her to go up an entry. She agreed to his
proposal, but she said when she saw who he was she
trembled, for she recognised him as the man who had
stabbed her on the 10th of January. She told him that
she thought she had seen him before, and she went to
fetch a policeman, bat could not find one. On the follow-
ing Friday, a woman told her the man's name was Henry
Humph eys, and where he lived ; and upon this she
obtained a warrant, and had the prisoner apprehended.
She swore positively that the prisoner was the man who had
been with her on both occasions, as well as upon a third
occasion, three months before the 10th of January. She
identified him, as she had done befoi'e the magistrates, by
his whiskers and by his voice, to which she now added that
she knew him by a scar under his left eye. A man named
Black proved that soon alter 11 o'clock on the night of the
10th of January he saw the prisoner go into the Spread
Eagle public house. Mr. Cook Evans, for the defence,
said the only question was whether the prisoner was the
man who committed the cruel and dastardly assault upon
the prosecutrix ; and he contended that if the prisoner
had been the man the prosecutrix would at once have
identified him by the scar on his cheek. Mr. Baron
Martin said that he thought the verdict ought to depend
upon the confidence the jury might feel in the honesty of
the woman's conviction of the prisoner's identity rather
than upon any particular marks or circumstances. The
jury found the prisoner guilty. Mr. Baron Martin said he
thought the offence c .mmitted by the prisoner was about
the mcst atrocious he had ever heard of. The law pro-
tected the good and the bad alike, and the prosecutrix was
entitled to be protected in her person as much as if she
had been the most respectable woman in Shropshire.
After soma further comments on the case his lordship said
he felt it to be his duty to sentence the prisoner to seven
year's penal servstuae.