The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-25 00:00:00

sions.

THIRD COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
William Smith and Thomas Ailum surrendered to take
their trial on an indictment charging them with violently
assaulting and inflicting personal injuries upon William
Thomas and Benjamin Woodnutt.
_ _ _

Mr. Le Breton-prosecuted ; and the defendants were re-
presented by Mr. Sleigh, with whom was Mr. Orridge.
The inquiry into this case occupied the attention of the
Court and jury for a considerable time, but the facts may
be briefly narrated. On the part of the prosecution it was
alleged that the prosecutors, who are barge builders residing
in Rotherhithe, and in the same employ, after leaving their
work on the night of Saturday, the 25th of July, went to
their homes and remained there until about 10 o'clock,
when they proceeded to the residence of the prosecutor
Woodnutt's mother, in Millpond-street, where they partook
of supper and one glass of beer each. They were returning
home when the two defendants, who were on duty in plain
, clothes, time up to them, and, as alleged, using most coarse
language, said that they had been long on the watch for
them, and that they would lock them up. The men Thomas
and Woodnutt at once denied that they were the characters
the defendants had imputed to them, and eventually Thomas
was knocked down by the defendant Smith, and Woodnutt
by Allum. The prosecutors were followed to the residence
of Thomas, but not by the defendants, who, on alarm being
given by the prosecutors, ran away. The prosecutors were,
however, followed to the residence of the mother of Thomas,
and there taken into custody by a policeman named
Lamb, on the charge of being drunk, disorderly, and
having assaulted the police. The prosecutors wore locked
up on the charges, but subsequently bailed out, and on the
case being heard by Mr. Traill, at the Greenwich Police-
court, the charge was dismissed after a long investigation.
The allegation on the part of the prosecution was that both
the prosecutors had been seriously injured by the defend-
ants ; and this was the point at issue.
Mr. Sleigh, for the defendants, said he was in a condition
to negative the assertion that his clients had been guilty of
the violence imputed to them. The defendants had been
long in the service, and by good conduct had been raised to
the position of detective officers. It would be shown that a
row had taken place in Dockhead, Rotherhithe, at which it
was supposed the prosecutors had taken part, and were con-

sequently watched and eventually taken into custody on the
charge of riotous conduct and assaulting the police-officers.
They were charged in proper form, and then never insinu-
ated that they had been assaulted by the present defendants
On behalf of the defendants a host of witnesses were
called, all members of the same division of police, with a
view to show that the prosecutors were intoxicated, and
that they had been concerned in a row at Dockhead, which
was negatived by the witnesses for the prosecution.
Inspector Moore deposed that he was on duty at the sta-
tion-house when the prosecutors were charged, and that
they were then both intoxicated, and made no mention of
having been assaulted by the defendants.
The Common-Sergeant, in summing up, said that this
was ono of the most remarkable cases he had ever had to try.
The question involved was one of a very important character,
and he warned the jury to be cautious, as there was evi-
dently strong partizanship, and it was perfectly clear that
one party or the other had committed perjury.
The jury, after a very brief deliberation, returned a ver-
dict of guilty, but at the same time coupled their verdict
with a recommendation to mercy on the ground of the good
character they had received ; and the jury also expressed an
opinion that they thought the defendants had mistaken the
prosecutors for other persons who had been concerned in a
disturbance or riot at Dockhead.
The Common Sergeant asked the police whether they had
heard anything about the row at Dockhead, and they said
there had been nothing of the kind ; and then turning to the
jury, the learned Judge asked them whether they remained
of the same opinion as to the defendants being mistaken as
to the prosecutors being concerned in the riot.
The foreman of the jury said, after the evidence they had
heard, they should alter their verdict, and simply find the
defendants guilty.
The Common Sergeant, in passing sentence, said the de-
fendants had been guilty of a very serious offence, and in
proportion as power was given to the police, the Court was
bound to pass a sentence commensurate upon any officer who
abused the power placed in him. The power vested in the
police placed the public very much at their mercy, and the
act which they had committed was an exceedingly gross one.
He always passed severe sentences upon those convicted of
assaulting the police, and he should now pass a severe sen-
tence upon police officers, and that sentence was that they
be kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for the
term of 1S calendar months.
With this case the business of the session terminated,
and the Court was adjourned to Monday, the 26th October