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

with an assault. This was a case of most extraordinary
exaggeration. The witnesses 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 sho 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 heard 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 haul 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, bur which he hoped would not long remain, a pri.•
soner could not be examined. He should, howevers 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 produc3. 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. He 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 officer 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 the
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 he 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 master 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 ke 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 he 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 Willem 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 were indicted
for feloniously assaulting and beating Joseph William King,
and stealing £2 Bs. and a chain and watch from his person
at Bristol on .Tnly 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 further 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.—LivEarooL, 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 on
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 he 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 D. 85. 6d., £4
75., and £2 145., the property of his masters, the overseers
of the township.
Mr. Higgin prosecuted, 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 of 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