The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—WELLS, AUG. 11.
CIVIL Coma.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
The following case had given rise to so much excitement
in the city of Bath, that it required all the exertions of the
police to protect the patties from the violence of the mob, as
it was considered to be a case similar to that of Bird and
his wife, who were tried at Exeter come years since, and
which had given rise not only to great litigation and mud)
legal argument before the judges, but eventually to a spe-

cial Act of Parliament. -
Alfred Gardiner Wenslay, and Lucy Wenslay his wife,
two respectable young persons, dressed in deep mourning,
were charged with the manslaughter of Jane Reynolds, a
poor orphan 14 years of age, who had been brought up in
the workhouse, and when 13 years of age had been placed
with Wenslay, a furniture broker in Bath, as a servant,and
it was alleged that Wenslay and his wife had treated the
poor orphan with such cruelty as to occasion her death.
The prisoners were first indicted for manslaughter, but
that bill was thrown out by the grand jury. They were then
charged upon the coroner's inquisition with manslaughter,
but no evidence being offered they were acquitted, The
indictments were then severed.
Alfred Gardiner Wenslay was indicted for unlawfully as-
saulting
Jane Reynolds, and occasioning actual bodily
harm, at Bath, on June 7.
Mr. T. IV, Saunders and Mr. F. Baily were counsel for
the prosecution; and Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. H. T. Cole
for the prisoners.
According to the statement for the prosecution it appeared
that this poor girl, being an orphan in the workhouse, had
been placed by the guardians as servant to the prisoner and
his wife, two very young persons. After she had been there
some time the neighbours heard screams and blows, and
they saw bruises on the person of the girl. At length she
was removed to the hospital at Bath, where she died of con-
sumption. The following evidence was adduced :
Jane Thackrell—l live at No. 12, Hampton-row, near
Bath. The prisoner lived at No. 11. I knew him and his
wife. Jane Reynolds was their only servant ; she was 14.
The houses are small. Mr. and Mrs. Perkins lived with me.
I was at home on Saturday the 7th of June. About 11 o'clock
that night I heard the prisoner speak to Jane Reynolds. I
knew his voice. Our kitchens were on a level with a very
thin wall between them. I called down D.
Perkins. I
heard the prisoner say, «your eyes, Jane, I will kill
you, and I will do it to-night." I heard blows and screams.
Jane was screaming.
I could hear plainly what took place.
The learned Judge said evidence must be given of other
assaults.
Mr. Collier and Mr. Cole objected to this ; the moment
an assault was proved the indictment was satisfied. The pro-
secutor was precluded from proving more than one assault.
The Judge—lt - might be admitted to show the character
of the assault—to show it was not within reasonable cor-

rection.
Mr. Cole—ln Bird's case the assaults were charged in
different counts.
The learned Judge was of opinion the fact of the relation
between master and servant gave a character of continuity
to the treatment of one by the other, and any treatment
within reasonable time was evidence to show the character
of the act,
Mr. Collier hoped his lordship would reserve a case.
The Judge thought not. It was a question of form, and
he must take upon himself so much of what had been called
legal ignominy as attached to the decision.
Examination continued—I have at other times subse-
quently heard Jane scream on several occasions, but I do
not know that the prisoner was present. I heard rows
nearly every night, late in the evening.
Cross-examined—The prisoner had two children, one born
since he came to Hampton-row. It has died since the inquest
on Jane Reynolds. Thenoises were about eight weeks before
I did not refuse to allow w
but h iI did t°
notide do
Jane Reynolds died. Mr. Aust, a builder, afterwards called
to measure the wall.
id
not neversay
so. And when Mr. Aust went into the next house I did
not call out for him to hear. I have given information to
the coroner's clerk- I had previously told Mr. Bryant. I
told the coroner's clerk what I have told here to-day, A
olrctooultdheifplvihsoandelri.stelnedd
poll the
lives near me, but I did not tell him. I
could hear the noise of blows through the wall, whether a
stick or the hand I could not tell. I have told you the words
I heard, and have nothing more to say. I did not notice
other words. I heard them talking very
noticespoke
tow theyhjaatoe R
to Mrs. Morgan that I would have pushed Mr. Au
he had come into my kitchen. Mrs. Morgan told 't
out
if
Mr. Aust was in No. 11, I did not tell her I
had me that
thrown
open my cupboard in order that Mr. Aust might
eysnaiotds
hear
Mary Perkins;ane Reynolds was a little • .
She did not look at all healthy, I went into the thin girl.
kitchen on
the Saturday night, being called by Mrs. Thaekrell. I heard
prisoner's a good deal of loud talking in the kitchens. I
knew the prisoner's voice. I heard blows b • ".
he would kill the girl being struck, and
I heard him say that night. Iheard
t several blows, and then a faint scream in -he girl's voice.
It lasted about five minutes. I heard other words, but could
not tell what they were, I saw the gi •
rl i
the follow
day . She showed me bruises on her arm following Tues-
to her, and she then made a complaint. and face. I spoke
Cross-examined--DIY parlour where I
kitchen. I did not hear anything in
the live is over the
know what the wall is made of. 1 suppose parlour. I don't
don't think the blows stopped when the prisoner said he
Bath stone. I
would kill her. I can't positively swear I heard her scream
after he said this. The bruise on the
face was like a slap
from a hand. When Mr• Aust Wasin
Thackrell and I carried on a conversation the other house Mrs.
she b •
kitchen and being in my room. .r, being in the
i
speak in a loud voice. t did not require us to
By the Judge—The mark en
the arm was as if done with
a stick.
Mary Whitemore—l live at No. 7, Hampton-row. I often
saw Jane Reynolds. I have seen marks of violence upon
her ; marks with a stick and other
weapons so long as two
months before her death, and some later. Some were on
her back, the impression of an
iron tip on the heel of a man's
boot. I saw on the head with the handle of
a lump of a blow
a carving-knife. She was
lame.
The Judge said the witness'
wa
preju-
diced from the answers she
had given.
evidently much
gven.
Cross-examined—r
- Saw the mark of the nails of a boot.
told the neighbours what I had
seen ; probably every neighbour in the row. I may
told all the neighbours. have
Re-examined—The girl was very feeble.
Mr. Smith Barker—
I a
Bath Hospital. Jane
in resident medical officer at the
of July ; she was in a
co Reynolds was brought in on the 22d
camnstnption, and died in an hour-
and-a-halt after she
Mr. Collier objected toe in.
evidence of bruises, which were
spoken of as having arisen from blows on the 7th of June.
The Judge said there
assault within a
month. It
no evidence bringing down tusy
By the Judge... 4 did was not evidence.
before.
not find any bruises referable to
any assault a month
This was the case On the
part of the prosecution.
Mr. Collier then
It was one of the addressed the jury for the prisoner,
most painful cases he had ever known.
This youth and his
child s
wife, who had lately been a
mother, were brought
manslaughter. The to those assizes to answer
chargeof
heard that there was no valid
ground for that charge. His friend had said that there was
no reason for supposing
that these people in the slightest
degree conduced towards the unhappy death of this poor
workhouse girl. She died of consumption, a disease which
deceived every one. No doubt she had the seeds of con-
sumption in her when she went into that service, and no
doubt
was unfit for the •of duties,butshe
did her
did not know, nor did her master and mistress know it.
But a popular notion had gone forth in Bath that these
young people had been the cause of the girl's death, an
impression not unlikely to have taken possession of men's
minds who did not know the circumstances of the case.
Every one went about open mouthed—" Oh, she died in
consequence of the cruel treatment of her master and mis •
tress." This was a striking illustration of how subject to
error was popular feeling. But, happily, in this country,
any one charged with an offence had a right to bo tried, and
these parties had come to these assizes to take their trial on
a charge of manslaughter—that charge, however, had en•
tirely fallen to the ground, and they were now only charged

with an assault. This was a case of most extraordinary
exaggeration. The witne3ses had said they heard blows.
Did they believe that a slap in the face, given by the tiny
hand of that young woman, not yet 18, would have been
heard through a 6-inch stone wall? The women wit-
nesses had worked so hard upon their imagination that one
of them said that she could trace the marks of the nails
of a boot upon the girl's shoulders. It was clear these
good women were partisans and had made up their
minds to the hearing many things which had not actually
occurred. lie would give them credit for humanity, but if
they had hoard all they had stated, would they not have
given information to the police ? They would not have been
contented with merely chattering to their neighbours.
When Mr. Aust, the builder, had gone into the next house,
these women had cried out as loud as they could, and yet
Mr. Aust could not hear them when he was in the next
house. Masters and mistresses had a right to chastise their
servants and apprentices to a certain degree. It was impos-
sible to call the prisoner or his wife to state the real facts. If
this had been a civil action for an assault they might have
been examined ; but in a criminal court, as the law now
stood, but, which he hoped would not long remain, a pri-
soner could not be examined. He should, however, give some
evidence which, he thought, would alter the case very ma-
terially. The learned counsel then stated the nature of the
evidence he should produce. When the poor girl was upon
her deathbed and was told of that fact, in answer to ques-

tions put to her she stated that she had not been unkindly
treated, and to the last she had clung to her mistress and
begged not to be taken from her. These young people had
just entered upon life; they had borne the highest character
for kindness and humanity. He would leave the case in their
hands, not without anxiety, but with strong hopes that there
had only been that ordinary correction which a master was
justified in exercising. Ho trusted the verdict would dissi-
pate the popular clamour which had been raised, and that
these young people would be returned to their homes with
characters perfectly freed from every stain.
Mr. Davis—l am the relieving offir)er of the Bath Board
of Guardians. The girl was placed out in 1862. We visit
those who are put out twice a year. I saw her last Decem-
ber. She expressed herself satisfied with her master and
mistress. I saw her again in May, and she did not then
make any complaint.
The learned Judge said if that evidence was admitted he
should allow a former witness to be recalled and ask what
the girl had told her.
Mr. Collier then said he would not proceed with that
head of evidence.

Mr. Aust, a builder, was recalled—l went to look at these
houses. The width of the wall between them is six inches
of stone, in addition to mortar. The best first-class houses
in Bath have not a greater thickness in the party walls.
Words could not be heard from house to house, nor could
the sound of blows. It is impossible. Articulate words
could not by possibility be heard.
Cross-examined—There were no cracks in the wall. I
know this house well, because I superintended its building
for my brother-in-law.

Thos. Isaacs, an architect in Bath, confirmed this testi-
mony as to the thickness of the wall. He bored two holes
through the wall to ascertain it. Could not distinguish any
sound when persons were speaking at the top of their voices.
Ann Morgan--I saw Mr. Aust at No. 12. Mrs. Thrack-
rell said he was there to try her wall, and she said she would
have pushed him out if ho had come into her kitchen. I
never heard a word through the wall.
Several witnesses were then called to speak to the charac-
ter of the prisoner.
Mr. Saunders having replied,
Mr. Justice Willes summed up. It had been laid down
in the old law that a master might use moderate correction
to his servant as he would do to his own child, but the
reasonableness of that correction must vary according to the
usage of society. That law had its origin at a time when
the government of a toaster over his servant was of a more
paternal character than it was at the present time ; but he
must warn persons that if a master used force towards his
servant he would be amenable to the law. There was no
case in modern times where a master could in anger strike
his servant without being liable to be called upon to justify
his act.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
There was a similar indictment against the wife, who was
defended by Mr. Prideaux.
The learned Judge said he thought the whole case had
been tried out, and he thought the other indictment ought
not to be proceeded with, because both cases depend upon
the same evidence.
Mr Saunders not acceding to this,
Mr. Justice Willes said ho should consult the Chief
Justice; and, having done so, his Lordship said he thought
it would be a waste of judicial force—it would be breaking
a fly upon a wheel to proceed further.
No evidence being offered, the female prisoner was ac-
quitted.
Mr. Justice Willes said he would not say that he con-
curred in the verdict the jury had given. It must be a
satisfaction to find that no person, however humble, could
be illtreated without justice being done them.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, AUG, 12.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Thomas Adams and Henry James Phillips wore indicted
for feloniously assaulting and beating Joseph
and stealing £2 Bs. and a chain and watch from his person
at Bristol on July 20.

Mr. Cooke was for the prosecution. The prisoners were
not defended by counsel.

The prosecutor was walking down St. John-street, Bristol,
near St. John's-arch, on Monday night, the 20th of July,
between 11 and 12 o'clock, and was about 20 yards from a
gas-lamp, when two men attacked him from behind. One
got on his back and squeezed his throat under his chin by
forcing his knuckles against his throat, and when he cried
out the other sprang forward and hit him in the bowels.
One of them searched his pocket and took out £2 Bs. in
money, and took away his chain. The watch and lockets
were picked up by the police afterwards at the place where
the attack had taken place. The only question in the case
was as to the identity of the prisoners. The prosecutor had
no opportunity of seeing their faces, but he took notice of
their backs ; and he pursued Adams for some distance, and
when he had stopped at the corner of a lane a policeman
came up, who had just met Adams running away.
The jury found Adams guilty, but Phillips not guilty.
The same prisoners were then indicted for robbing John
Harding, at Bristol, on the 25th of July.
Mr. Cooke was for the prosecution.

The prosecutor was walking up West-street, a little after
nine o'clock at night, on Saturday, the 25th of July, when
Adams came up to him and took him by the waistcoat, and
would not let him pass. Adams then slipped on one side ;
the prosecutor turned round, and Phillips then seized him
round the waist. The prosecutor was enabled to see his
face, and identified him by his sharp nose. They then left
him, and he found his watch was gone and his guard hang-
ing loose. Phillips was firrther identified by a witness named
Williams.

The jury found both prisoners guilty.
A previous conviction was proved against Phillips.
The learned Judge postponed the passing of the sentence,

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, Aug. 12.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
Alexander Fletcher, aged 20, by trade a journeyman
joiner, was indicted for having, at Manchester, on the 3d of
April (Good Friday), feloniously killed and slain one Thomas
Shaw.
Mr. Pope appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Torr was
for the defence.
The case for the prosecution was that the deceased was a
hairdresser, and lived in Rochdale-road, Manchester. On
the evening of Good Friday he was with a friend named
Curran at the Bellevue-gardens, and between 9 and 10
o'clock was dancing with his companion and two women
when three or four men, of whom the prisoner was one,,
jostled against them. Deceased requested the men to desist
from their annoyance, but they said they would do as they
pleased. Deceased then asked one of them whether they
came from Oldham, as he thought so, " they appearing so
uncultivated." The question annoyed the men, and there-
upon a scuffle took place, deceased's friend being struck, and
deceased himself joining in the melee, striking some of the
offending party " right and left." He was assaulted, and
stabbed both at the back of the head and in the side. He was
taken to the Royal Infirmary at Manchester, where he died at
the 10th of June. On the 19th of April, as the deceased was
in a dangerous state, Mr. Trafford, the stipendiary magis-
trate for the division, was sent for to the infirmary, and the
deceased then made a statement, which was placed by Mr.
Trafford in writing. On the 22d April, having told the pri-
soner the charge on which he was apprehended, that of stab-
bing Shaw, Mr. Trafford caused him to be taken to the infir-
mary, where, at the bedside of Shaw, in prisoner's presence,
the deposition taken on the 19th was read over by Mr. Traf-
ford. Shaw then swore positively to the prisoner as the man
who stabbed him, identifying him as being tall, round-
shouldered, and without beard. He admitted that ho struck
the prisoner twice before the latter stabbed him. Witnesses
were called who deposed to the prisoner having been one of
the party who joined in the assault upon deceased and his
companion near the orchestra, in the gardens. Prisoner
had several times during the period of his confinement ad-
mitted having been in the gardens, but denied stabbing de-
ceased. A brother of his and several other witnesses were
called for the defence, who denied that the prisoner was
dancing at the time, or taking any part in the disturbance,
and declared that he was not near the deceased when the
latter was stabbed. The prisoner, who was in respectable
employment, had hitherto borne a good character.
A lengthened trial of the case resulted in the jury re-
turning a verdict of not guilty.
John Raynor, a respectable-looking middle-aged man,
the assistant-overseer of the township of Chatterton, was in-
dicted for embezzling three several sums of £1 Bs. 6d., £4
75., and £2 145., the property of his masters, the overseers
of the township.

Mr. Higgin prosecute'd, and Mr. Pope defended the pri-
soner.
The prisoner, it appeared, filled the office of collector of
poor rates of his township, and in fulfilling its duties it ap-
peared that he had received the several sums if money set
out in the indictment, from different ratepayers, and had
not accounted for the same in the books of the township, or
paid them over to the overseers, It appeared from the