The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-07 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTEL r IGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, DEC. 6.
The commission of gaol delivery Was opened here to•
day. There aro only 10 prisoners for trial, but all the
oases aro of a serious character.

The grand jury were called and sworn, and Mr. Jus-
tice Crompton having delivered a brief charge, the busi-
ness of the county was proceeded with.
Thomas Coppard, 31, formerly a private in the Royal
Horse Guards B'ue, was indicted for having feloniously
cast upon one Mary Jackson a quantity of oil of vitriol,
with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.
The prisoner was also charged with the Fame offence
in relation to another female named Elizabeth Hawkins
Knight.

Mr. Lilley conducted the prosecution.
was defended by Mr. Sumner.
The learned counsel for the prosecution, in opening
the case to the jury, described it as one of an extraordi-
nary and unusual character, and the following evidence
was then gone into :

Th© prisoner

Miss Mary Jackson, an interesting-looking young
woman, said—l reside with my father at Croydon. On
Thursday, the 29th Nov., T was walking with my sister
in Coombe-lane, near the church. I saw the prisoner,
who appeared to be loitering about, just as we got oit
the path leading to the church, and immediately after-
wards he followed us. When we bad got nearly to the
end of the path he came close behind me and my sister,
and there was something in his appearance that made me
feel timid; I observed him, and he then turned away and
appeared to be looking over a fence into a field. I walked
on, and in consequence of something my eiete: said to
me, I looked at my dress, and saw that my shawl and
other parts of my clothing were stained red. I and
my sister then went into St. Peter's school, and I
there examined my clothes more attentively, and dis-
covered that my dress, my underclothing, and my stock-
ings, were all burned, apparently by some fluid. I
and my sister returned home a few minutes after this,
and on our way I met my father and mother, and I ob-
served the prisoner still walking on the path leading to
the church. I went up to him and asked him if he was
the man who had followed me and my sister a few
minutes before, and he said he was. I then said to
him, " Why did you throw that stuff over my dress '1"
He made no answer. My father came up at this mo-
ment, and I told him in the prisoner's hearing that the
prisoner had been following me and my sister, and that
he bad thrown vitriol over my dress. My mother asked
him what he had to say, and he ran away, and an alarm
was given, and he was shortly afterwards taken into
custody. A portion of the liquid fell upon my hoots and
stockings, and my leg was burned by it.
The clothes worn by the witness were produced, and
they appeared to have been burned in several places.
Cross-examined—I had known the prisoner by sight
for some time, but had never spoken to him before. He
seemed to me to be idling about, but I did not observe
anything wild or strange in his appearance.
Miss Emily Jackson, the sister of the last witness,said
—I was walking with my sister on the of ernoon of the
29th November, and I observed the prisoner loitering
about in Coombe-lane. The prisoner followed us into
the lane, and walked close to us for some time, and he
was the only person near us. I observed tbat my sister's
dress was burned, and I afterwards found that my own
shawl and dress were also injured.
James Bannister, police-constable, 222 P, said—l was
on duty on the afternoon in question on Park-hill, Croy-
don, when I heard a cry of " Stop thief," and saw the
prisoner running towards me. I stopped him, and the
father of the prosecutrix came up and gave him in charge
for throwing vitriol over ladies' dresses. Tee prisoner
said he had done it, but it was an accident. I asked hi'u
if he had got the bottle that contained the vitriol, and he
said he had thrown it away over the paling in the lane,
and that in throwing it away the vitriol had gone over
the young ladies' dresses. I asked him how he came to
have such stuff about him, and be said that he intended
to take it in order to destroy himself, but his heart bad
failed him. I then inquired why he had run away if the
affair was an accident, and be said he did so because he
knew it was a very serious charge. I afterwards made
a search in the field adjoining Coombe Lane, and found
a bottle which appeared to have contained vitriol.
Cross-examined—The prisoner told me that he in•
tended to have destroyed himself by putting his head
under the railway train. The train passed close to the
spot where the affair occurred. The prisoner, I believe,
is a married man, with a family.
Inspector Merritt, of the P division, proved that he
received the prisoner in charge, and that upon his tell-
ing him that he was accused of throwing vitriol over the
young ladies, with intent to do them some grievous
bodily harm, he said, " I admit I threw it over, but I
did not intend to do them any bodily harm."
Mr. Lancaster, a chemist at Croydon, proved that
the bottle produced by the constable had contained oil
of vitriol, and he said he had no doubt the wearing
apparel that had been produced bad been burned by
that fluid.

Mr. Sumner, in his address to the jury on behalf of
the prisoner, observed upon the extraordinary nature of
the charge and the utter absence of motive for the com-
mission of so wicked an act as the one imputed to the
prisoner. He said that the defence he was instructed
to make in his behalf was that the prisoner, being in a
desponding state of mind and meditating suicide, had
provided himself with the oil of vitriol for that purpose,
but his heart failing him at the moment he threw the
bottle away, and the contents accidentally felt upon the
dresses of these young ladies. The learned counsel also
' put it to the jury whether, if the prisoner had really in-
tended to do the young ladies any mischief, he would not
have thrown the liquid in their faces, or upon some
other part of their persons ; and, as it was clear he had
not done so, he submitt d that they would not he justi-
fied in finding him guilty upon the present charge.
Several witnesses were then examined, who gave the
prisoner a very good character.
The learned judge, in summing up, said that before
the jury could convict the prisoner under the present
indictment they must be satisfied, first, that he had
thrown the liquid upon the prosecutrix ; and secondly,
that when he did so, his intention was 1.) do her some
bodily injury. If they should think that his object was
merely to destroy her clothes, although that was un-
doubtedly a very mischievous and wicked act, for which
he would still be amenable to the law under another
form of charge, that would not be sufficient ; and before
they could return a verdict of guilty they must be satis-
fied that his intention was to cause her some personal

The jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict
of "Not Guilty."
The prisoner was then charged upon a second indict-
ment with committing two assaults, one upon Mary
Jackson, and another upon Elizabeth Hawkins Knight.
The facts deposed to in this case were the same as in
the last, the only additional evidence being that of a lady
named Knight, who deposed that on the same day upon
which the former occurrence took place, at an earlier
hour, she was walking on Duppes'-hill, Croydon, a rather
retired spot, when she observed the prisoner, who
walked after her for some distance, and then suddenly
stopped. She shortly afterwards received some informa-
tion which induced her to examine her clothes, and she
found they were wetted by some oily liquid, which had
burned holes in several places. The prisoner, it ap-
peared, was an entire stranger to her, and she did not
recollect to have ever seen him before.

The jury in this case, without any hesitation, returned
a verdict of guilty. _

The learned judge, in passing sentence, said that the
jury had probably only done right on the former charge
in acquitting the prisoner of intending to do bodily
harm, and that they imagined that he only intended to
destroy the clothes of the young lady who was the prose-
cutrix in that case. That was, in itself, however, a very
wicked and brutal act, and he could not imagine what
gratification it could afford to the person who was guilty
of it In the present case the prisoner had been most
properly convicted of an assault, and he was only sorry
that he had no power to inflict a greater punishment than
imprisonment, and that he was prevented from adding
hard labour. He then sentenced the prisoner to nine
months' imprisonment.