The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-07 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

ORD, Dec, 5.
CROWN
yinesttehre.
HOME CIR C UIT —cHoEunitET.
F
o forru n g
consideration passed
sentencef
rom
(Before Mr. Justice Williams.)
s
cases which
The learnehdaJdusdtogoedthoi:emr
day.
The two men named Hankin and Garratt, who were yes-
terday convicted of night poaching on land belonging to
Mr. Pullen, M.P. for the county, were each sentenced to one
year's imprisonment with hard labour.
The three men, named Peel, Cooper, and Turner, who
were convicted on their own confession of setting fire mali-
ciously to farm buildings, including dwelling houses, and
against whom previous convictions were proved, were sen-
tenced respectively to 12 years' penal servitude.
Three men, one a tailor of Burton, Yorkshire, one a tailor
of Paddington, and one a labour of Suffolk, convicted of
setting fire to two stacks of clover hay at Ware, were sen-
tenced to 10 years' penal servitude.
Two young men, one named Wright, describ:A as a la-
bourer of Nottingham. but who appeared to belong to a
much better
position in life, and looked rather like a clerk
or shopman, and the other named Rhodes, a labourer of
Rickmansworth, who had been convicted of setting fire to
stacks or crops of wheat in this county, were each sentenced
to six years' penal servitude.
The learned Judge was occupied the greater part of the
morning in trying a meat curious case of fowl stealing, in
Which not leas than six men were charged with stealing 30
fowls and a pair of gloves at Offiey.
Mr. G. Taylor conducted the case for the prosecution.
The prisoners were not defended by counsel, but defended
themselves with considerable acuteness, and as there were
six of them, and each of them cross-examined every witness
the trial was necessarily protracted. The prisoners being so
numerous, and not having been seized in the act or on the
spot, and the fowls taken being so common, the case in-
volved some difficulty in proof, and was very complicated.
In substance the case was this:—The fowls were all stolen
from a farm at Oftley, a place about six miles from Luton,
on Friday night, the 14th Nov. last. On the same night
the prisoners, all of whom lived at Luton, were seen four
miles away from that place in the direction of Offiey. On
Saturday they were found selling a large quantity of fowls,
six of which were identified, and several wet e produced in
court. On Sunday some of them were at Welwyn, a con-
siderable distance from Luton, and when two of them were
apprehended the rest fled and were taken 10 miles off.
In the course of the case the learned Judge took occasion
to observe on the improper and inconvenient manner in
which the depositions of the witnesses before the magis-
trates were written. Not only were they written in an ex-
tremely illegible hand, but on both sides of the paper, and
the result was that they were very difficult to read. In con-
sequence of this, as it was very essential in a criminal trial
that the judge should follow the evidence of the witnesses
on the depositions, the time occupied in the trial was a good
deal prolonged, and the labour of trying the cases very
much increased. He hoped that the magistrates' clerks
would really take a little more care in preparing the deposi-
tions, and if they could not themselves write them legibly,
at least get them so written by others.

The complaint thus made by the learned judge is one
which is constantly made by the judges at the assizes
all over tho country, and has been made from time to
time for years past. It may appear a trivial matter, but
those who have been at all in the habit of observing the ad-
ministration of criminal justice are aware that, practically,
it is one of great importance. The depositions of the wit-
nesses as taken before the magistrates on the committal
of the prisoners for trial are returned to the assizes for the
express purpose of being read by the judge and referred to
at the trial, in order, on the one hand, to guide the judge
in charging the grand jury, and, on the other hand, to be
compared with the oral evidence of the witnesses, in order to
detect any discrepancies, contradictions, or inconsistencies.
Any one who has ever had to read much of other persons'
handwriting is aware that it is even at the best a tiresome
operation—and when the handwriting is not only strange,
but bad :and indistinct, especially if the lines are close
together and confused or straggling the difficulty of course
is much enhanced. But if to all this be added the difficulty
arising from the writing being on both sides, the writing on
one side being partly seen through tending to darken and
obscure the writing on the other, the task of reading be-
comes more arduous, and extremely trying to the temper.
And this trying task is imposed upon judges in criminal
trials—often in cases of life and death, when the very
essence of the utility of the depositions is that they should
be capable of being referred to and read in an instant, in
order to observe how far the oral evidence either tallies
or varies. The difficulty is still greater in a case like
the present, when there are several prisoners, and it is
necessary to note very carefully how the evidence affects
arch ono in particular. Our reporter has often had occa-
sion to refer to the depositions, and has found them
almost always extremely difficult to read with facility, so
as to follow the evidence with the mind. This is the less
excusable because the self-seine depositions when copied
into briefs by attorneys' clerks aro found written in a large
legible hand (always on one side only of the paper) ;
and it is hard to see why magistrates' clerks should write so
badly while attorneys' clerks write so well. This is the more
important because in most criminal cases the evidence--as
in this case—is circumstantial, and depends on minute facts
and details, the due appreciation of which is greatly inter-
fered with by the constant difficulty of reading.
After a laborious trial and a careful summing up the jury
found all the prisoners guilty of the stealing except one,
whom they found guilty of receiving. One of them was
proved to have been convicted before of felony in October
last year, another was proved to have been convicted of
felony in December last year, and another was proved to
have been convicted of felony in 1861.

The leatned Judge in passing sentence said it was an ag-
gravated case, and sentenced the worst prisoner to 3 years'
penal servitude; the others to one and a half year's and one
year's imprisonment with hard labour, and the receiver to
6 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

The learned Judge then took the case of the burglary at
the house of the Hon. and:Rev. Chetwynd Talbot, rector of
Hatfield, in which the butler was charged as the robber.
The property stolen was plate to the value of about £650.
The case was rather remarkable as a curious instance of
circumstantial evidence. The prisoner, whose name is
So; gee, and who appeared above 40 years of age, was placed
at the bar indicted for burglary. The crime of burglary, it
should be mentioned, may be committed by breaking out of
a house as well as by breaking into it, the purpose being
robbery ; and the indictment charged that the prisoner,
having committed the robbery, " burglariously broke out"
of the house. He pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Bushby were for the prosecution;
Mr. Woollett and Mr. Ludlow for the defence.

The Hon. and Rev. Chotwynd Talbot is rector of Hatfield,
and the prisoner was his butler,and had charge of the plate,
and slept, either in the pantry, where it was kept, or a room
which adjoined, called the housekeeper's room. For some
months past he had slept in the latter room, and he did so
ott the night of the robbery, and from the head of the pri-
soner's bed to the pantry-door was only two or three feet.
Some week or so before the robbery the prisoner asked for
and obtained from Mrs. Talbot some green baize to make
bags to keep the plate in, and one of these, it will be seen,
was afterwards found, not with plate, but with burglarious
implements in it. On 9th Nov. last, Mr. Talbot was at home,
ltnd at dinner used the breadbasket, which was of silver,
s.._'(laome of the plate which was afterwards stolen. Before
6uing to bed that night he and his wife lighted their candles
with a Piece
ball of paper, the remains of which they left in the
chainotd
.which turned out to be one of the links in tho
morning el'%lirastantial evidence, for it was found next
waiarltaiet Overton, saw the prisoner in the pantry
l„dy,, maid, the house. About 20 minutes past 9 the
ereeaedki,nhg,,,daniten
oield
him
Brown, the gardener, night,
appear to have retired good night. Eliza. Milward, the
night, and came home at 10, with
tottbout half-past 10 the household
g drawn
was over the kitchen, heard
the lady's maid, whose be'de:t, and about that time Harriet,
pa anoise
l, aos' col of cak,c the r choeetku, Elea' !.
as of some one walking inalong bricks. At a little
bedrooragard en, the sound being
ib,uute4sdhaey,
No:o
hoardthe garden,
a noise from the out-
sidea
r u a
13 I
ill Windown:Bes at
reots‘hvaeai
drback
tt
heodef
anvderyshneehareahredr
gave that the
,one were up. This
poaf then footstepsth 3o
,u, saes
..alarm.
and gave her the inapt" •
about 20 I;infistinuintit:s
Aboutbutler N7v a s
o'clock u p anind
gardener, Brown (who lived over the stable), Went "
to, theth
thein the
morning pantry,
e
pantry window to ask the butler if he Was going ti,
light
found the Window
open and
no one in the pantry. He looked in, and the bread basket
was not there, and he must have seen it if it had been there.
He went round the front of the house and in front of the
conservatory, and observed footmarks. Turning back he
met the prisoner coming round suddenly from the direc-
tion of the pantry, apparently in a very excited state,
holding up his hands and saying " Good God I the
house is robbed I The plate is gone l" The gardener
pointingout to the prisoners some of the footmarks, he put
his feet on some of them until told by the gardener not to do
so, as it would erase them. Going round to the pantry, the
prisoner said "they had left the plate-basket behind," and
which was afterwards found by him, as he said, under the
pantry window, though, as already stated, the gardener
Swore it was not there. Tho police were cent for, and the
footmarks from the conservatory down to the lawn within
12 yards of the pantry window corresponded, according to