The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

HOME CIRCUIT—GUILDFORD, AUG. 2.
The business of the assizes commenced here to-day.
Mr Justice Willes charged the grand jury. The calendar

contained less than 20 cases, all of which were of the most
ordinary character, with the exception of the supposed case
of murder at Penge ; as to which, however, the learned
Judge rather advised the grand jury to throw out the bill
(the evidence not being sufficient), and they acted on that
advice and threw it out. There is also, indeed, a case not

in the calendar (as it was a case of bail) which will be of
great interest. It is the charge of manslaughter against the
engineman and driver of one of the Ascot trains on account
of the late unfortunate railway accident at Egham. In the
course of the day the grand jury found the bill, Mr Ser-
geant Ballantine and Mr Sleigh are retained for the defence
of one of the men; Mr Philbrick and the B on. Alfred
Thesiger are retained fur the defence of the other. The case
will come on to-morrow (this day).
There were two or three cases of arson, one or two of
burglary, two or three of fraud, and a case of bigamy ; the
others were cases of larceny. In the Civil Court. where Mr
B .1..0n Martin presided, 116 cases were entered for trial, of
which as many as 35 are special jury cases. It is probable,
therefore, that the business of the assizes will last at least
a fortnight. The criminal business will take a second, if
not a third day, and then both judges will doubtless try
causes. This will be about Thursday or Friday, when ono
judge will probably take special jury cases.
CROWN COURT. •
(Before Mr Justice Willes,)
A young labourer named Shelley was tried for maliciously
and feloniously setting fire to a barn and other farm build-
ings at Englefield-green, Egham.
Mr Lilley was counsel for the prosecution; Mr Oppen-
heim defended the prisoner.
The prisoner was known to the prosecutor for some four
years before the time of the fire. The prisoner at 11 o'clock
in the evening, about a qu trter of an hour before the fire
broke out, was sitting in a publichouse near the barn, r aked
for some lucifer-matches, and was then seen to go in the
direction of prosecutor's barn. Soon after he returned to
the publichouse and gave the alarm of fire. He assisted in
extinguishing it, and went to work the next day. He was
afterwards arrested, and when in the police-station made a
confession of the crime charged against him, alleging
drunkenness as an excuse. The property destroyed by the
fire was worth several hundreds of pounds.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, but strongly recom-
mended him to mercy on account of previous good
character.
The learned Judge seemed surprised at this, and, after a
pause, said he should take time to consider how far such a
recommendation could be attended to in a case of such a
serious crime, and one in which property to so largo an
amount had been destroyed.
In the meantime some other prisoners were arraigned,
and then

The learned Judge desired the inspector of police to stand
up, and asked him if he know anything of the prisoner, and
the inspector stated in answer that some 7 months ago there
was another fire, as to which grave suspicions were excited
against him, but not enough to lead to his being given into
custody. Nothing else was known about him.
The learned Judge, in passing sentence upon the pri-
soner, said the recommendation of the jury, who wore his
judges as to the facts, had saved him from a very severe
punishment. For such a crime he would otherwise have
been sentenced to a term of penal servitude at least thrice as
long as that which would be inflicted. Paying the greatest
respect, however, to the recommendation of the jury, he
could not be sentenced to less than four years' penal ser-

vitude.
A man named Harry was indicted for feloniously setting
fire to a shed.
In the course of the case an important point of criminal
procedure arose, which it may be remembered also arose at
Maidstone.
Mr John Thompson appeared for the prosecution—Mr
Lilloy defended the prisoner.
The prisoner and prosecutor lived close to each other, and
the shed was attached to the prosecutor's cottage. Late at
night it was found on fire, and as though it had been just
set on fire, and the case for the prosecution was that ho
afterwards said that he had gone to bed very early that
night.
The learned Counsel for the prosecution, in stating the
case, proposed to prove some previous circumstances tend-
ing to show a probability that the prisoner was then about
to attempt the act, and ho cited the case of "The Queen v.
Dossett," 2, Carrington and Kirwan, nisi Arius cases, to
that effect, where it was held by Mr Justice Maule that
where the question was whether the burning was wiiiul or
accidental evidence was admissible to show that on another
occasion the prisoner was seen in such a situation as to
render it probable that he was then engaged in the commis-
sion of a similar offence against the same property; but
Mr Justice Willes said that was too loose, and contrary to
all his notions.
Mr Denman, Q.C., as amicus curio, handed to the learned
Judge " Wills on Circumstantial Evidence," a wprk very
highly esteemed in the profession, in which the case cited
with others el the same character were mentioned and com-
mented upon, under the head of "Declarations and Acts
indicative of guilty consciousness or intention," and, allud-
ing to the case of Dossett, the learned author says :
" All such relevant acts of the party as may reasonably
be considered explanatory of his motives and purposes, even
although they may severally constitute distinct felonies,
are clearly admissible in evidence. Taus, where, upon the
trial of a man for setting fire to a stack of straw, it ap-
peared that it had been set on fire by his having fired a gun
very near to it, evidence was admitted that the stack had
been set on fire the day before, and that the prisoner was
very near to it with his gun at the same time ("It. v.
Dorsett, 2, Car, and Kr., 306, by Mr Justice Manic), So
upon a charge of maliciously scooting, where the question
was whether the act procuded from accident or design,
evidence was admitted that the prisoner had intentionally
shot at the same person about a quarter of an hour before.
So, in Taweil's case, the present Lord Wensleydale, then
Mr Baron Parke, admitted evidence that the deceased had
been taken ill several months before, after partaking of
porter with the prisoner, and said that, although this was
no direct proof of an attempt to poison, the evidence was,
nevertheless, admissible, because anything tending to show
antipathy in the
party accused against the deceased was
admissible."
Mr Justice Willes, after reading this passage, said that
it very well explained the case cited with reference to the
facts on which it was decided, and it well explained the
principles on which such decisions rested—viz., that where
from the facts imposed to be proved the conclusion may