The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-13 00:00:00

CHARGE OF ASSAULT.

William Mullins surrendered to take his trial
upon an indictment charging him with assaulting
James Permewan, and causing him bodily injury,
and also with a common assault.

Mr Robinson and Mr Clark prosecuted ; Mr
Woollett and Mr Ludlow were counsel for the de-
fendant.

This case created some little interest on account
of the position of the parties, and the circumstances
under which the alleged assault took place. The
defendant is a farmer, occupying a farm belonging
to Sir Edward Lytton, M.P., at Bletch worth, near
Stevenage; and it appeared that in March last he
received notice to quit this farm. The prosecutor,
at the time of this notice being given, occupied the
position of land steward to Sir Edward Lytton, and
there was no doubt that a good deal of ill-feeling
existed in the defendant's mind against him.
The prosecutor stated that an May 18th he was
engaged in marking bark upon some trees near de-
fendant's farm, and on his return home with his
son, a boy nine years of age, he was met by the de-
fendant, who seemed very angry, end was' talking
at him ;" and though he tried to avoid him, the de-
fendant seized him by the collar and twisted his
head round, and nearly strangled him. In order
to release his neckerchief, as was stated, the prose-
cutor pulled out the knife he had been using, and
tried to cut it. The defendant then began kicking
him violently on the shins, and he fell to the ground
insensible, and very severely injured, according to
the testimony of Mr Marshall, a medical gentle-
man. The prosecutor was subjected to a severe
cross-examination by Mr Wooilett, and admitted
that before the assault he had walked across
two of the defendant's fields ; but the main
facts, as previously stated, were not shaken. It
was further stated, in the course of the inquiry, that
the prosecutor had left the service of Sir Edward
Lytton since the transaction, and that the differences
between the defendant and his landlord had been
arranged, and he was to continue in his farm. The
magistrates also had declined to commit the defens
dant for trial.

Mr, Woollett, for the defendant, strongly urged
that the prosecutor had brought all the inconve..
niences he had suffered upon himself, and that the
defendant had done no more than any other man
would have done under the same circumstances, the
prosecutor being a trespasser upon the defendant's
land. All the defendant did Nina to remove him,
and when the prosecutor found he was getting the
worst of it, he reverted to the dastardly expedient
of drawing a knife and trying to make nse of it.
A number of respectable witnesses, most of whom
were in the same condition of life as the defendant,
were called to speak to his character, and they all
described him as n harmless, inoffensive man, and a
good, peaceable neighbour.
Mr. Justice Willes having summed up, the jury
at once returned a verdict,' of " Not guilty ;" and the
defendant was ordered to be inanediately discharged.

SACRILEGE.
Isaac Anderson, alias Jones, 30, descr;,lma as a
draper, pleaded guilty to an indictment
charged him with breaking into the parish church
of Bushey, and stealing a cloth and other articles,
the property of the parishioners.
Inspector Allison, of the K division of the metro-
politan police., informed the court that the prisoner
had been previously convicted of breaking into the
parish church of St. George's-in-the-East, and also
into that of St. Ann's, Limehouse. Under that con-
viction he was sentenced to eighteen months' hard
labour.

The prisoner was sentenced to five years' penal
servitude.

The whole of the civil business was brought to a
conclusion by three o'clock, and Baron Martin was
angaged until the rising of the court in assisting to
dispose of the gaol carendar.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—WARWICK, July 12.
(Before MI Justice Keating.)
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

Miss Harriet Butler, daughter of the ex Mayor
of Tamworth, brought an action against Mr Richd.
Edwin Ruffe, late surgeon at the Bradford Mr.
mary, to recover damages for breach of promise of
marriage, &c.
Mr Field, Q.C., and Mr Miller, appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr Digby Seymour, Q.C., was specially
retained on the other side.

Defendant pleaded that he never promised to
marry, but that if he did, at the time of doing so
plaintiff herself absolved him from fulfilment.
The facts of the case, as they came out in evidence,
are as follows—Defendant resided at Tamworth in
1852, while walking the Birmingham Hospital, and
there became acquainted with plaintiff, who had
recently lost her father, a gentleman occupying,
from his character and position, considerable influ-
nonce in her native town. Ho engaged himself to
her, and continued, from that time up to very re-
cently, on the most affectionate terms, writing
numerous letters, couched in terms of endearment.
After a voyage to New Zealand, defendant became
surgeon to the infirmary at Bradford, Yorkshire,
and, writing thence on the 30th of October, 1859,
to her a letter commencing, "My own dear darling
Harrie," he said—
This afternoon—that is to say, as soon as I have finished
this letter —I shall go to Birmingham to look about the
place. I mean to begin. to work. I think I shall, as soon
as I conveniently can, love, go to Scotland and take the
M.D., since it would, of course, be better to call myself
" Dr." Buffo than " Mr." (Laughter.) And then you will
be called Mrs Dr Buffo. However, of all this you shall here
more anon. I trust, my own darling, I shall hear from You
when you get home, because I am always pleased to hear
from you. Do, love, write as you think ; remember you are
my wife, and that I am in every way yours, and yours
only; therefore you ought not to have any ceremony or
doubt. With best love, and thousands of kisses for your
'wn dear self, 1 am, dearest Harrie, your own dear—Tv).
continued to write similar epistles, and in
ho of going into partnership with a Mr
1860 spoke er opinion, as his future wife on
Dryden, asking '-;11g rits den, saying, "Do
the advisability of tab_