The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-08-04 00:00:00

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.

ftICESTEIt ASSIZES, LEICISiEI, AUG. I.
These Assizes eommencecV this morning, Mr. Justice Hot.-
gnarl) prodding at Nisi Priors, and dlr. Justice PARK sitting
in the Criminal Court.
CRIMINAL. SIDE.
the attendance of Gentlemen of the Grand Jury was parti-
colgtly great. The usual number having been sworn in,
SirsJuatiee Pans, in delivering his charge, observed that the
calendar did not contain either many or any heavy crimes ; there
Were, hOwever, two or three which required his particular notice.
Ile alluded to the eases of three men who had been coramincii on
very peculiar grounds ; he meant Edward Higgs, Joseph Sherratt,
and John al ills.arhe distance of thus when these men were com-
mitted after the cotemission of their supposed offences was parti-
cularly reinarkab:e. Sheeran was committed on the 25th of lase
month upon the simpleton of stealing an ass, at a period so long
previous that it was hardly reasonable to expect the prisoner (o be
able to gives astisfactory aceottnt of the manner by which he be-
came possessed of the animal, alt the nature of the charge
would principally depend upon a • statement. As to John
Mills, is committal took plain nnlsr snore singular circumstances
than ;hat of Sheeran. The posseedfie, It appeared, four or live
years ago lost some harness, mad haMegt men the prisoner's hone
and cart, he thought the lannesteethigklee prisoner's horse had on
WAS that which had been stolen bait MI, and upon this lie had
the prisoner apprehended. Such a ems se this required on the
part of the Grand Jury the exercise of strict attention and care,
that there should at least appear some probable ground of charge
before the prisoner should the put upon his trial. The case of
Iliggs was no otherwise remarkable than that the offence of which
he stood charged was committed so far back as the 13th April 1823.
In all eases where such a lapse of time intervened between the
commission of the offence and the apprehension of the person
charged, it behoved the Grand Jury to inquire, and ascertain if
possible the cause of such a circumstance ; as it was desirable that
all delays in bringing offenders to justice should be satisfactorily
accounted for. There was one case which required the moat ac-
tions attention of the Grand Jury—it was that of Sir Willoughby
W. Dixie, who had been committed to gaol upon the charge of
shooting at the Rev. Thos. Wright and the Rev. C. Wright.
There were two acts of Parliament having reference to cases of this
description, the act of Geo. I. commonly called theßlack Art, and
! the one passed in his late Majesty's reign, anti which, from the tie-
cumstance of Ate being brought into Parliament by the late Lord
Ellenborough, was generally called lord Ellenborough's act. Ile
(Mr. Justice Park) did not know under which of these two acts it
was intended to prefer the present badicm.ent. The penalty im-
posed by the latteract Was that of disk ein such persons as should
maliciously shoot at others, with an intent to do one of four things
! —to murder, to disable, to inflict 'ins se grievous bodily harm, or to
prevent the 'Awful apprehension of the person. Should the evidence
go to make out either of these Intentions on the part of the prisoner,
then the Grand Jury would feel it their duty to put him on his
trial. The conduct on the part of the persons with whom the depo-
sitions which hail been taken in this ease, were left, gave occasion
for very serious complaint. The necessity for the Judge, before
whom prisoners were to be tried, to be furnished with eopies of the
depositions on which the commitmentx were made, must be so ob.
sious as en need no observation from him (tilt. Justice P). It often
happened that certain circumstances arising out of the depositions,
made it absolutely necessary for the Judge, in his charge to the
Grand Jury, to advert to and expound points of law, which it was
nest to be supposed Gentlemen, whose avocations did not demand of
them a close applicatiin to the law as a profession, could be suffi-
ciently conversant with. Rut this it was impossible for the Judge
to do, unless he were previously furnished with a copy of the depo.
eitions themselves. In the present case, it happened, that until
9 o'clock of the present morning, he had not seen one of the depo-
sitions taken before the Magistrate who committed the prisoner.
In so short a space of time, it was impossible for him to be sot?.
ciently acquainted with the facts, so as to enable hint topmeak
with certainty upon them. If, however, he were correctly
informed, the circumstances were such as involved some
difficulty to unravel. It was highly requisite that the depo.
*Woos in all cases of a criminal nature should be furnished to the
clerk of the arraigns; but they had been withheld both from him
and from the Judge, although he understood they had been fur.
flighted to the attorneys of the prosecutor and of the ptiaoner. This
was a procedure highly censurable, and indeed amounted to a
amities offence, for it was a very wise rule of law, that the Counsel
of neither party should be allowed to have or see the depositions, as
the publication of them might work a prejudice and thereby
thwart that justice, which it was the constant object of the law to
administer between party and party. It was in conthrmity with
the opinions of many of his eminent predecessors, when he de-
clared, that in his judgment, the premature publication of the nets
deposed to before a Magistrate, was calculated to do infinite mis-
chief; but the injury was considerably aggravated, when the pub.
Ideation was made exclusively to the parties concerned in the trial.
if the prisoner should be indicted under Lord Ellenborough's Act,
then the (irand Jury would inquire, first, whether the shot WAS
fired in the direction in which the prosecutors were, and if any dif-
ficulties presented themselves to their militia, it would be better for
them to find the bill, leaving it to another party to ascertain anti
determine how far the act was intentional to injure or otherwise. It
upon the facts, he as judge should be of opinion that, if death had
ensued, the crime would have amounted only to manslaughter,
then by virtue of the same Act of Parliament, he should be corn.
pelted to direct the acquittal of the prisoner; but if the facts did
not lead to such an opinion, then it would rest entirely with the
Petty Jury to determine, whether the prisoner was actuated by a
guilty intention or not.
Joseph Sherrill, aged 38. was indicted for having stolen, on 10:h
September 1821, an ass, the property (done Daniel Cooper.
D. Cooper deposed to his having lost an ass from Langley Com-
mon on the 10th September lax; 10at ke had traced it into the.
possession of a man named Tucker, who said he bought it of two
gi psies.
Joseph Tucker stated, that on Monday last the preceding witness
took the ass from hint. Witness bought it of a person named
terfield for 455. . .

_ .
Richard ‘Vaterfield said he sold the ass to the last a itness. !le
obtained it from bus sou. _ . .

-•1.
Il'aterfield deposed to his taking the ass of the prisoner in ex-
change for a pony. The pristmcr had had the ass in his posses-
sion some time. . . . . .

.....
It was proved by another witness that the prisoner was sccn near
Langley Comtnon about the time of the robliery.
The priponcv complained that owing to the lapse of time dace
the alleged commission of the ofl:•nce. the person who could have
proved the manner in which he became possessed of the ass had
died.

The Learned Judge, in summing up, observed on the unreason.
ableneri of expecting persons to give an account of their possession
after such a lapse of time.
The Jury ..4.laWed the risnnee.
CIVIL SIDE.
1

Before 9Ir.:J-11;1k; -do—LT{OTO.

BENNETT V. JOIINSO:si.
This was an action of trespass on the case. The declaration
charged the defendant with having entered the plaintiff'. close,
and there shot at and very grievously wounded his dog. The de-
fendant pleaded first the general issue, he also alleged that the dog
was of a terocioas and savage nature, accustomed to bite all man-
kind, and that he shot at him in his own defence, as the dog could
not be prevented from doing him an injury. To this the plaintiff
replied that the defendant was at the time a wrong doer, and upon
these pleas issues were joined.
%lr. Sergeant V*vc.iaw stated the case to the Jury. The
present action was brought in behalf of one who, though he could
not plead his own cause in words, possessed an eloquence that most
' powerfully appealed to the human heart, and would, he had every
confident hope, succeed to-day in gaining redress for one of the
most cruel and aggravated attacks that ever had been inflicted on an
1 inoffensive brute. This appeal, however, had been ineffectually
made to the defendant, whose rougher nature knew not how to
interpret the silent appeal of as noble, though perhaps, not so
reasoning an animal as himself'. The injury he had done to his
client, tar lie (dlr. Sergeant Vaughan) had this day to ralvocate
rather the cause of the ill-used animal than that of his master, was
most wanton and malicious, and could only spring from a very
strong feeling of resentment, either against the plaintiff' or his dog.
Mr. Bennett was a gentleman of considerable property residing
at Thurnby Lodge, about four miles from this town. The de-
fendant was a person of similar station of life in his neighbour-
; hood. The plaintiff". premises stood in a lonely and retired alma-
tion, and fur the better protection of his property, he kept a tine
Newfoundland dog, which was an animal of much real value, and
which plaintiff' estimated very highly. It would seem thatjlor
same reason or other the defendant had conceived an antipathy to
this poor brute, who in his nature was not only familiar, but quite'
I harmless. So dm s: was this feeling on the part of the defendant,
that he appeared to have entertained a secret determination to kill
bin). In pursuance of this design, hr, on the 4th of May last.
was seen lurking about the plaintiff's premises with a gun, and
was otlen noticed directing his particular attention to that part of
the yard where the dog was usually kept. There did not appear
to be any assignable motive for the defendant being in that pzaticci-
lar spot with such a weapon, and therefore dic presumption vas
not too violent to suppose that his object was to injure the plain.
tiff by doing harm to his dog. The close where the defendant was
seen, belonged to a Al r.North.and adjoined Ibe plaintiff's property.
After remaining about some time.lie succeeded in provoking a small
spaniel, whose barking roused the Newfoundland dog, who jumped
over the wall into the field, and ran towards the defendant. Ilia

manner, however, was perfectly inoffensive, but as heapproerhed
the defendant shot him in the breast. The dog survived the in-
jury, but his health was much impaired, and his courage was en.
.irelv destroyed. Having thus stated to the Jury the short history
of this outrage, he would put it to them whether so unprovoked an
aggression upon a favourite and inoffensive animal did not cull for
severe damages ? The dog was a specks of animal that was sus-
ceptible of the gentlest qualities. His good humour and attach-
ment to man was well known, and his utility could not be too
highly appreciated. Ile would nor. however, trouble them with
repeating all the testimonials of bis kindly disposition and mild
nature which the attorney had tut out in Ms tNIr. S. Vaughan's)
brief, but would content himself with one quotation from sin ele-
gant and scientific writer, who sanl of them " they are animals
possessing a remarkably benevolent countenance, and 1 never saw
one that I did not wish to get acquainted with." The mode which
the defendant had adopted of becoming acquainted with the plain.
titre dog reflected no great credit on his knoWledge of natural his.,
tory, and was disgraceful to his humanity. Thy Learned Sergeant
then urged upon the Jury to give compensation in damages in pro.
portion to the injury sustained,
Miss Harriet Bennett examined.—l am the plaintiff's daughter
My father's house is at Thornsbv Lodge, a lone house, situate
'about four miles front Leicester. I know the defendant, 11 ho lives
about half a mile front Thornsby. I remember seeing hint on the
4th of May in the afternoon walklgg in Mr. North's-close, which
is edjeining to my father's court. The hid a gun on his sliouLler,