The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-04 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, DEC. 3.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
THE POACHING AFFRAY AT ROYDON HALL.
Alfred Burr Luck, 29; Thos. Stevens, 29; Geo.
Allchin, 28; Joseph Obey, 48, John Clapson, 24;
Stephen Burgess, 25; John Catt, 31; and Stephen
Everafield, 56, who had been admitted to bail, and
were all described as labourers, were charged with
the manslaughter of James Gray. There was an-
other prisoner, nemed John Hawkes, included in the
indictment, but he was admitted a witness for the
Crown. There was also an indictment against the
prisoners for night-poaching arising out of the same
circumstances.
Mr. Russell and Mr. F. I. Smith conducted the
prosecution. The prisoners were defended by Mr.
Ribton and Mr. Addison.
This charge arose out of a very sanguinary affray
that took place on the morning of Jan. 22 last upon
the Roydon Hall estate, in the parish of Peckham,
a few miles from this town, in a wood called the
Mote Wood, and during which the deceased, who
was the head keeper upon the estate, was shot, and
died very shortly afterwards. A bill for wilful
murder was found by the grand jury at the last
summer assizes against the prisoners Luck and
Eversfield, but the case was postponed ; and in con-
sequence of some doubts having subsequently arisen
whether the last-mentioned prisoner was concerned
in the affair he was admitted to bail. The other
prisoners were subsequently apprehended, and the
grand jury having returned a true bill against the
whole of them for manslaughter it was deemed ad-
visable to abandon the charge of wilful murder and
to proceed against the prisoners upon the lesser
charge. From the statement of the learned coun-
sel for the prosecution it appeared that on the night
of the 21st of January the prisoners (except Evers-
field) met at East Mailing, evidently by some pre.
concerted arrangement, and they at once proceeded
to the wood in question, Luck and several of the
others being armed with guns, and they commenced
firing at the game. The reports speedily gave
notice to the keepers of what was going on, and
the deceased, who had gone to bed, was aroused,
and he and other five men, some of whom were
underkeepers, and other watchers, proceeded to the
spot where the firing appeared to be. None of the
party, it appeared, had firearms, but Gray, the de-
ceased, was armed with a very formidable instru-
ment in the nature of a flail, the handle of which
was about four feet long, and two shorter pieces of
wood were attached to it by iron eyes, and in the
hands of any person who could use it skilfully this
instrument was calculated undoubtedly to cause
very serious mischief, and the other men only had
sticks. The keepers came up with the poaching
party in a meadow close to the wood where theyhad
been heard firing shortly before, and there appeared
to be no doubt that six or seven of the latter were
armed with guns, and a desperate struggle took
place between the parties, almoat at the commence-
ment of which the unfortunate deceased received a
gun-shot wound in the thigh, of which he died a
few hours afterwards. The learned counsel said that
these were the main facts of the charge against the
prisoners,and he should call a person named Hawkes,
who was one of the party, but who had been made a
witness for the Crown, who would prove that the
whole of them, except Eversfield, were present when
the shot was fired, and his evidence would be mate.
rially corroborated by other testimony. He next
proceeded to call the attention of the jury to the
law that was applicable to the case, and said that
any person was justified in apprehending another
who was in the act of committing an indictable of-
fence, and that law gave great additional powers in
the case of gamekeepers, and if a person in that
position was shot while in the act of endeavouring
to apprehend a poacher it would be murder, suppos-
ing he only made use of moderate and reasonable
force and violence to effect that object. If, however,
there was an excuse of violence on his part the offence
would still be manslaughter; and as the deceased
appeared to have made use of the flail during the
affray it was deemed advisable to abandon the
charge of wilful murder, and proceed against the
prisoners for the offence of manslaughter only.
With regard to the prisoner Eversfield, he had no
doubt originally been committed to take his trial
upon the charge of murder, but from information
that had since been received the prosecution had
reason to believe that he was not one of the party,
and Hawkes, the approver, stated positively that
this was the case, and the police engaged in the
inquiry were of the time opinion. As to him, there-
fore, he was ready at once to consent to offer no
evidence, if such a course met with the sanction of
the Court.
Mr. Justice Byles said he should not interfere,
and the case was consequently proceeded with
against the whole of the prisoners.
The principal witnesses were the keepers, and the
Queen's evidence, Hawkes, the latter charging
Luck with having fired the fatal shot.
A great many other witnesses were then exa-
mined with a view to confirm the evidence that had
been given by the approver Hawkes, and their tes-
timony went to show that on the night previous to
the affray the whole of the prisoners were seen in
Hawkes's company, and in the neighbourhood of
Roydon Hall. It also appeared that after they had
hopn taken into custody by Everest and Hulse, two
superintendents of the county constabulary, who
appeared to have exhibited a good deal of activity
and intelligence in reference to the affair, the whole
of the prisoners, upon being confronted with each
other, admitted that they were present when the
deceased was shot, but each denied that he was the
man who fired the gun. As regarded Luck, the
evidence appeared to be more conclusive against
him than any of the others, for, in addition to the
positive evidence of the approver, it was proved
that a cap belonging to him, with blood upon it,
was found near the spot where the affray took place,
and a gun, the stock of which appeared to have
been recently broken, was found in his possession
when he was taken into custody.
The learned Counsel for the prisoners, at the close
of the case for the prosecution, uddressed the jury
on behalf of their respective clients, the line of de-
fence taken by both being pretty much the same—
namely, that the evidence of the accomplice could
not be relied upon, and that there was not sufficient
confirmation of his testimony to justify the jury in
finding the prisoners guilty of so serious a charge.
It was also urged that, even supposing the jury
should be of opinion that Luck was the man that
fired the gun and killed the deceased, nothing was
more probable than that it was fired, during the
desperate struggle he had with the keeper, by acci-
dent. The learned counsel also argued that, if the
jury should even think that the gun was discharged
wilfully, there was no evidence to show that any
of the other prisoners concurred in that act, and,
consequently, upon both these grounds, that they
were entitled to an acquittal.
Mr. Justice Ryles summed up the case with great
care and minuteness, and he said that before the
jury would be justified in finding the prisoners, or
any of them, guilty, they must, in the first place,
be satisfied that the gun was fired intentionally
either by Luck or one of the others, and secondly,
if they should think that this was established, they
must be satisfied that all the prisoners had one
common object, and that they all concurred in the
discharge of the fatal shot. He at the same time
observed, with regard to the latter question, that
it Wan a very material fact that when there we re-