The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-19 00:00:00

It'appeared that Mr Sandford's keepers, Martin, Stone,
and Allen, were out on the watch, and hearing the report
of guns they went in that direction, and came up with the
two prisoners in a lane. Wright said to Martin, " Well,
Thomas ; what, do you want us ?” Martin raid, " Yes ;
Cve been looking for you long enough." Wright then took
a bludgeon from his pocket sad struck Martin with it. The
two prisoners then ran away. Martin followed them and
overtook them. The prisoners then took bludgeons from
their pockets and gave Martin repeated blows and cut his
ear. There were feathers about the spot where the prisoners
were first seen. After the attack upon Martin tae prisoners
again ran away. but were apprehended the next morning.
Mr Prideaux submitted that the counts charging an in-
tent to prevent the apprehension of the prisoners could not
be sustained. To justify the arrest the prisoners must haN'e
been found in the plantation or on the land, bat there was
no evidence to show this.

The learned Judge held the objection to be good, and
that the case must be limited to the charge cf 'wounding
with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Mr Prideaux then addressed the jury on behalf of
Burston, contending that there was not sufficient evidence
of identity.

The Judge having summed up,
The jury found the prisoners guilty of wounding with
intent to do grievous bodily harm.

The Judge said if they had poached and run away they
would have had but a slight punishment. Instaad of'fight-
ing fist to fiat they had injured this man so that they were
nearly standing there for 1244 xotuder.- Vbey-mtist be kept
in penal servitude for five years.

Robert Burge was indicted for maliciously placing a piece
of wood on the West Somerset Railway at Bishop's Lydiard,
with intent to obstruct an engine and carriage using the
railway, and endangering the lives and safety of the pas-.
gors. on the 17th Ootober.

Mr Edlin prosecuted, and Mr Prideaux defended the
prisoner.

The facts of the case appeared to be these. The driver of
an engine travelling on the line between Taunton and Wat-
chet on the night of Oct. 17, on the up journey, travelled
along without finding any obstrueticn ; but on his return
journey some short time afterwards he found the lifeguard
of the engine strike against something. On his arrival at
the next station he examined the lifeguard, and he saw
marks on it as of white paint, and he gave inforniation to
the authorities. Search was then made, and it was found
that a gradient post had been removed, and had been placed
on the rails. The question then arose as to the person who
had committed this diabolical act. Close to the spot where
the gradient post had originally been placed there was a foot .
mark of a boot of a most remarkable kind. Suspicion arose
and the prisoner the next morning was apprehended ; his
boot was taken off, and it corresponded completely with the
footmark found near the gradient post. The prisoner was
then asked many questions as to where he had been on the
previous evening, and in the course of conversation he seve-
ral times altered his story. It appeared that the prisoner on
his way home from the place where he had been would have
to pass along the line.
Mr Prideaux made a most zealous address on behalf of
the prisoner.

The learned Judge, in summing up, referred very much
.o the footmarks.

The jury found the prisoner guilty.

Mr. Baron Bramwell then sentenced the prisoner, saying
,hat he could have had no object but a mischievous pro-
pensity—nothing could be worse than wuat he had done, it
-.vas even worse than firing a gun among a crowd. It was
necessary to strike terror into the minds of a mischievous
people, and with that view he should sentence the prisoner
to be kept in penal servitude for five years.