The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-29 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFonD, July 25.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Sarah Ellis Reece was indicted for the manslaughter of
her stepson, W. Ellis Reece, an infant of the age of three
years, whose death, it was said, was caused by starvation
and violence.

Mr. Hill appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.Motteram de-
fended the prisoner.
Some witnesses described the child as greedy and dirty,
and as exhibiting signs of starvation and neglected, and
further that they heard the prisoner use threatening lan-
guage to the child, and had seen her strike it. One woman
spoke to having suckled the child at a time when it was
not under the charge of the prisoner, and to its then being
strong and healthy. A little boy, own brother to the de-
ceased, said that he had seen the prisoner strike the deceased
the day before he dial, but he remembered also his brother
falling downstairs a short time before his death, but he
thought he was not then hurt on his head. The surgeon's
evidence was to the effect that when he was called in to see
the child on the 16th March he found many bruises on the
body, particularly on the head. The blows on the head
had been recently inflicted ; those on the body were of some
standing. Both arms were broken, but death did not result
from this injury. When, on the 17th March, he made a
post-mortem examination ho observed under the forehead
extravasated blood from eight bruises ; he also found 3oz,
of serum in the ventricles of the brain. The stomach was
contracted by reason of want of food. Death was accele-
rated by violence and ill-treatment, but the child was a
diseased child, and had been scrofulous and syphilitic from
its birth. The witness said, on cross-examination, that he
thought a fall would not account for the injuries he saw,
but he would not say it did not cause them. The bruises
on the body did not occasion death, and the bruises on the
head might not have occasioned it but for the want of food
and neglect,

The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and
The learned Judge sentenced her to penal servitude for
life.

JULY 27.

John Birkin Potter was indicted for wilful and corrupt
perjury, committed at the County Court of Staffordshire, at
Longten, on the 12th of May last, before Mr. W. Spooner,
judge of the court.

Mr. Davis and Mr. Motteram were for the prosecution;
and Mr. A. S. Hill was for the defendant.

1 It appeared that a widow named Rowson, a beerhouse-
keeper, sued the defendant for an ale score, and her
daughter-in-law appeared at the County Court to prove the
claim. She stated in the course of her evidence that she
supplied 14 quarts of ale to the defendant on Christmas-eve,
and that three men—Bailey, Hawkins, and Tunis—were
with him and shared the ale. The defendant appeared at
the Court with his attorney, and was called as a witness in
his own behalf, and ho denied that he owed any part of the
debt, and further swore that he never drunk in the plain-
tiff's house with Bailey, llawkins, and Tunis. The learned
judge of the court thereupon directed Bailey to be sent for
he and other witnesses were examined, and the result was
that the defendant was committed for trial on the present
charge. The three men in question were now called as wit -
nesses for the prosecution, and stated that they were in
partnership as potters with the defendant, and they all
swot e positively to the fact of being present with him at the
beerhouse on Christmas-eve, that he ordered 14 quarts of
ale, and that they drank it together.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, but strongly recom-
mended him to mercy, a recommendation in which the pro-
secutor joined.

The learned judge passed a sentence upon him of one
year's imprisonment, with hard labour.
George Clarke was indicted for wilful and corrupt per-
jury at a County Court held at Wolverhampton, before Mr.
Allan 11.*Lean Skinner, the judge of the court.
Mr. Motteram and Mr. Seeker were for the prosecution ;
and Mr. A. S. Hill was for the defendant.
It appeared that one George Dennis had been the keeper
of a publichouse called the George, in St. James's-square,
Wolverhampton, and, wishing to dispose of the business, he
consulted with a valuer and auctioneer named Altree, and
the result was that Mr. Altree became the purchaser of the
household furniture, plant, and effects at the price of £llO,
and of the ale and spirit stock at £lO, on the 29th of No.
vember. Altree subsequently sold, on the 2d of December,
what he had purchased for the £llO to one Paisley for £135,
subject to a deduction of a few pounds. Possession of the
George had been taken by Altree on the 29th of November,
and was given up by him to Paisley on the 2d of December,
but, inasmuch as the ale stock was reserved, Altree had it
moved between 7 and 10 o'clock on the night of the 2d of
December. Disputes had, however, arisen between Dennis
and Altree, and in the end Dennis put Altree in the County
Court on a plaint for £5O damages in trover, for, among
other articles, certain ale, and it then became a question
whether Altree had removed any ale from the George before
the 2d of December. Upon the hearing of this plaint the
defendant was called as a witness for Dennis, and swore that
he saw ale being rolled away from the George to Altree's
premises at an early hour on the Sunday morning, the 30 th
November; that Altree's man and another man we removing
it, that ho had made the remark that there was something
wrong at the George to be rolling away ale at that time of
night ; that Altree's man then said, "We are robbing the
George of ale," and that Altree was standing by ; he shouted
for something,and the man said no more. The learned judgeiff
of the County Court ultimately gave judgment for the plaintiff
for £6. This prosecution has since been instituted. Altree
negatived all the assignments of injury, and stated that
hGeeoand his daughter and Dennis's daughter all left the
rge about twelve o'clock on the night in question ;
that before he left he locked up the George; that the
three went
till 8 or 9 o'chlrcketzad to bed, and that he did not get up
e neat morning; and that he neither left
his house during the
night, nor did he part with his keys.