The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1863.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS—SeFit 7.

(Before Mr. Payne.)
At the sitting of the Court considerable delay was occa-
sioned in consequence of the numerous excuses being offered
by persons who had been summoned as traverse jurymen,
principally upon the ground of being upwards of 60 years
of age, which, of course, formed a legal ground of exemp-
tion. Out of a panel of GO persons summoned at this ses •
sion only 30 could be found qualified as jurymen, and this
is the case nearly every session.
Mr. Payne commented with some severity on the way in
which persons over 60 years of age were summoned to act
as jurors, whose names ought not to be on the list.
The summoning officer said the whole fault lay with the
overseers, and from the defective way in which the lists
were made out. In many cases the names of persons were
sent in as qualified to act as jurors who had been dead four
or five years, had gone away, or were otherwise disqualified,
but the sheriff in issuing his precept had no means of ascer-
taining these facts.

In the present instance the jurors were summoned from
the parish of St Pancras.

John Brown was indicted for assaulting John Michael
Connor, a constable of the Metropolitan Police, in the exe-
cution of his duty.
Mr. Cooper (instructed by the Treasury) prosecuted ;
Mr. Ribton defended.

John M. Connor, 56 E, said, on the 20th July, at about
half-past 12 o'clock at night, he was on duty at Marylebone-
street, where he saw the prisoner,two other men,and a woman.
The prisoner and the two men were talking together at the
corner of a street. He knew the prisoner from having seen
him hundreds of times in the street, al'lr;ugh he did not
know his name. 'While they were talking a young man passed
by and accidentally touched one of the men who was with
the prisoner, who upon that began abusing the young man,
and using the foulest language. Witness spoke to this man
and told him that he ought not to insult people at that
hour in the morning, and that it would be the
best plan to go home, as it was then getting very late, The
men said they would do so. Witness went on about three
yards, when one of the men who was in the company of the
prisoner said, "you I will settle you." He returned
and asked him what he said, but he did not repeat the word.
Witness said, " You must go home now," and put his hand
on his shoulder and pushed him into the street. That was
not the prisoner, but one of his companions. This man put
himself into fighting attitude, when the prisoner came up
and struck witness a violent blow in the mouth with his fist,
and in consequence of that blow he fell backwards and his
head came in contact with the curbstone. It was a violent
blow and it knocked out one of his teeth. The next morn-
ing he found himself in the hospital, and was there for 13
days. He remained insensible the whole of that night and
part of the next day. He was examined before his discharge
by the hospital surgeon, and afterwards by Mr. Ross, the
divisional surgeon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton—There was no particular
disturbance that night, as Sunday is usually a quiet night.
Witness had not spoken to the man more than two minutes
before he was knocked down.
Peter Frampton, an undertaker, said at half-past 12
o'clock on the night of the 19th of July he was in Maryle -
bone-street, He saw the prisoner and two men standing
talking, and he touched one of them accidentally in passing.
Witness saw a friend home whom ho was with, and re-
turned the same way. When he came back the policeman
was speaking to the men, advising them to go home. He
ordered them off, and then he (witness) went away. One
of the men made use of bad language, to the effect that he
would finish him.

Mr. Ribton—You being an undertaker, that would just
have suited you. (Laughter.)
Witness—And it would have suited for you. I should
be happy to oblige you at any time. (A. laugh.)
Mr. Ribton—Not at present, I thank you, (Itenewed
laughter.)

Witness continued—The prosecutor pushed tho man
into the street, when the prisoner came up behind him
suddenly and knocked the policeman down. He struck him
in the mouth, which rendered him insensible. All three
men then went
away. Witness was sure the prisoner was
the man, as he was not more than four feet from him when
this occurred.

Mr. Tyer, house surgeon at Middlesex Hospital, said the
constable Connor was brought in on the morning of July
20th in a state of unconsciousness. He had a contused scalp
wound and a concussion of the brain.
Mr. G. Ross, surgeon to the C+ division of police, said he
saw Connor on his discharge from the hospital. He was
still suffering under great debility, and had been under his
care ever since. He was still unfit for duty.
.

.„...
John Rogers, police-constable 47 E, said he took the pri-
soner into custody on the 11th ult. He told him he should
take him into custody for an assault on a police-constable
in Marylebone-street, at the corner of Ogle-street, on the
20th of July. He said it was not he, as he was put to bed
drunk that night at 11 o'clock.
This witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr.
Ribton as to whether he had not stated before the magis-
trate that the prisoner had said he was not the man. For
some time he did not answer the question, upon which Mr.
Ribton asked to have the depositions before the magistrate
read. In these it appeared that the witness had stated that
the prisoner had denied that he was the man.
The witness leaving acknowledged that the depositions
were read over to him, and that he had signed them, in ex-
planation of his omission said he had forgotten it.
Mr. Ribton, at great length, addressed the jury on behalf
of the defendant, and said he should call witnesses who
would positively establish the fact that this was not ate man
who struck the blow, and unless they should believe that
they came forward to commit wilful and corrupt perjury,
they would give justice and acquit the prisoner.
Four witnesses were called, two of Went stating that at
11 o'clock on the 19th of July, they saw the defendant
Brown lying drunk in front of the house where he lodged ;
that they assisted in putting him to bed, and they could
positively assert that ho never left the house during that
night. The other two witnesses swore that they were pre-
sent in Marylebone-street, and saw the assault committed
upon the prosecutor, but it was not by the defendant at the
bar. 'they were positive that it was not the prisoner who
struck the blow, as the man who did commit the offence
more
re
e witnessesevidence,
ee ,
on
behalf
e h atf
the
the police-office
asking if
a of
but the magistratelic
prisoner,e-o ffi e
t for
h e
was much shorter and altogether unlike him in appearance.
Within a few days they had seen the man who really com-
mitted the offence.
In en ss- exa minatioia
areby tthe Cooper,
eo g et.hsetrtewe glatter
2,
an
wit-
nessesf
said they
were in attendance
therethe
wereo s e a on fy
n
giving
dud
policeman said,
"They
ll
that he was so, and
they were not called. They were asked by the
policemanto
cepomeamkittotetdhtehiedeausstiatuyito,fbtuhte
theym an
deniedßr w
Brown as the
person who
they were not examined.
Mr. Cooper replied upon the evidence given on the part
of the prisoner, and contended that the persons who had
some forward had been called to prop up the case for the
custody, charged with the
eps to bring the real offender to
prisoner, and it was at least very strange that as they knew
the man who really committed the assault, and knew also
offence,that
tihnenyo innocent
t manwas in
taken
no steps
justice. The witnesses who had been called,on the part of
the prosecution were most respectable persons, and as the
jury had seen their demeanour and the way in which they
had given their evidence, he saw no reason why their testi-
mony should be doubted, or why they should, under the
sense of a solemn obligation, come forward to commit per-
jury to serve a man who was almost a stranger to them.
He believed the case had been fully made out, and he called
upon the jury to return a verdict against the prisoner.
Mr. Payne minutely summed up the evidence,
consultation, returned a verdict of
notT ghueijlutyry. , after
__a
_long

Wm. Parker, 23, barman, was indicted for stealing 6s and
other moneys, the property of Tom Surridge, his master.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Sleigh appeared for the prosecution; Mr. M. Wil
Hams for the prisoner.

Mr. Sleigh said he appeared on the part of the prosecution
in this matter, and he was afraid that the Court would be of
opinion that it was one of the worst of its class, for although
the prisoner was charged in the indictment with only steal-
ing 65., yet Mr. Surridge had lost altogether upwards of
£BOO, and since the prisoner had been in custody, his tak-
ings had been plus £lO per week. That systematic plunder
had been carried on was made manifest from the fact that
the prisoner had a bag which he secreted in a hole in the
floor, and covered it over with a carpet. Mr. Surridge, hav-
ing his suspicions, put himself in communication with Ser-
geant Joy, of the C division, who found the money in the
hole increase from time to time, and among it some of the
money that had previously been marked by Mr, Surridge.
He was then taken into custody, under the advice of Mr. M.
Williams, he had pleaded guilty, but he (Mr. Sleigh) would
have been guilty of dereliction of duty if he had not stated
these facts, and Mr. Surridge, in justice to the body of
licensed victuallers to which he belonged, as well as to him-
self, felt bound to institute these proceedings.
Mr. M. Williams, for the prisoner, said there was nothing
against his previous character, and he believed his former
master with whom he served was willing again to take him
into his service. He asked for the mercy of the Court on
account of his youth, and of his having yielded to a tempta-
tion that he had not strength of mind to resist.
Mr. Sleigh said that Mr. Surridge was present if his
lordship wished to ask him any question. He had paid the
prisoner £25 a year, he had his board and lodging, and was
treated as one of the family.
Mr. Payne deferred passing sentence until Friday.
George Thallman, prosecuted at the last sessions of this
Court by the Associate Institution for Improving and En-
forcing the Laws for the Protection of Women, and con-
victed of indecently exposing himself on the top of a house,
was again brought up.
It will be remembered that an objection was taken at the
trial by Mr. Best, the prisoner's counsel, that the top of a
house which could not be seen from the public thoroughfare,
although it might be seen by the inmates from the back
part of it, was not such a public place as could bring the
prisoner within the operation of the act.
Mr. Payne said the point raised by Mr. Best was one of
considerable importance, and it ought to be settled by a
superior court. He should therefore remand the prisoner
until November, and in the meantime a case would be sub-
mitted for the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. He
would allow the prisoner to give bail for his appearance when
he might be required, himself in the sum of £BO, and two
sureties of $25 each, and 24 hours' notice of them to be given
to the prosecutors,