The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-09 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, Aug. 8.
CROWN SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
GAROTTE ROBBERY.
Alfred Murray, 22, and Daniel Wood, 30, were
charged with feloniously assaulting and robbing
Arther Chandler of a gold watch and other pro-
perty.
Mr. Hance conducted the prosecution, and in
opening the case he said that it was one of those
garotte robberies that had of late been of such fre-
quent occurrence, and which had created so much
alarm in the public mind.
Mr. A. Chandler deposed that he was a solicitor,
and resided at Lambeth-terrace. On Sunday even-
ing, the 20th of July, about half-past eleven o'clock,
he was near his house, on his way home, and just
as he got close to his own door he heard footsteps
' behind him, and was suddenly seized round the
throat, his breath was nearly stopped, and he was
almost strangled. He was held by two men, and
a third man came up in front of him and jerked
his watch out of his Docket, at the same time
saying, "Choke" or " Kill the --; he is too
strong." He had a plain view of the man who held
his throat, and he was quite sure it was the pri-
soner Murray. He also recognised the other pri-
soner as one of the party, but he had not an oppor-
tunity of seeing him as well as the other. Witness
was forced to the ground, and for a short time
was nearly insensible, and when he had slightly re-
covered he saw the three men crossing the road,
and one of them had his hat in his hand. The pri-
soner Murray was taken into custody on the fol-
lowing morning, and he recognised him imme-
diately. The other prisoner was not apprehended
until the following Wednesday. He added that he
was unable to call out for assistance on account of
the manner in which his throat had been com-
pressed. _ _

The prisoner Murray put some questions to the
prosecutor, with a view to show that he was mis-
taken as to his identity, but he persisted in saying
that he was positive he was one of the men who
attacked him.

Thomas Macaulay, a police-constable, proved
that-he was passing along the road when the rob-
bery was committed, and saw three men running
very fast in a direction from the place where the
prosecutor was attacked, and he identified the pri-
soners as two of these men. He heard of the rob-
bery about two o'clock the same morning, and ap-
prehended Murray in the course of the day. He
subsequently apprehended the other prisoner at a
brothel where he lived, and the prosecutor identi-
fied them the instant he saw them.

Both prisoners, when called upon for their de-
fence, asserted that they were innocent, and Wood
went into a long statement, in which he argued at
considerable length upon the improbability that
the prosecutor or the policeman could have identi-
fied him when they had each so short an opportu-
nity of seeing him.
Mr. Baron Bramwell having summed up,
The jury acquitted the prisoner Wood and found
Murray Guilty.
George Lewis, 21, tailor, was charged with a
similar offence upon Francis Judd.
Mr. Dickie prosecuted.
This case was similar in its circumstances to the
last. The prosecutor was passing along Bermond-
sey-street, on his way home, ahoat 11 o'clock at
night, when he was assailed by three men, one of
whom seized him by the throat, and his watch was
then snatched from him, and he was also robbed of
2s. 9d. The men then ran off, but a constable, who
was coming in an opposite direction, stopped the
prisoner and another man, and after a short
struggle he was secured, and the prosecutor came
up and identified him.

The prisoner, when called upon for his defence,
declared that he was innocent, and that he heard
the alarm, and he was running after the thieves
when the constable stopped him.

The jury returded a verdict of guilty.
Ackroyd, a constable of the F division, produced
a certificate of the conviction of the prisoner at the
Middlesex Sessions in 1860 of a similar robbery,
and he was sentenced to two years' hard labour,
and he had only been a very short time out of
prison when this offence was committed. At the
time he was convicted it appeared that there were
several other convictions for felony against him.
The other prisoner, Murray, was then placed at
the bar, and in answer to inquiries made by the
learned judge, it appeared that he was not known to
the police, and he most earnestly asserted his inno-
cence.

The learned judge, in passing sentence, said that
these offences were of the mast atrocious character,
and people were almost afraid to walk in the
streets at night in consequence of them. It was
absolutely necessary that they should be repressed
by severe punishment, and with regard to the pri-
soner Lewis he felt it his duty to bentence him to
20 years' penal servitude. As to the other prisoner,
he had been convicted by the la ry, and he was
bound to pass a sentence upou that conviction—
but it' hereafter he should be able t o show that he
had been improperly convicted he Iv °Ilk!, in all pro.
bability, have an opportunity of d:dng so. At pre-
sent, however, he had no alternative but to sen-
tence him to ten years' penal servi t ude.
Murray left the bar sobbing and. declaring that
he was innocent, but the other p ,risoner, Lewis,
was very violent, and threatened t: he police officer
who had given evidence against his a that when he
got out he would " hang for him."
This concluded the criminal busr,:ness.

CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Mil r tin.)
DICKSON V. TIIE CORPORATION OF LONDON.
The plaintiff in this action sougi t to recover the
sum of £47 as the value of two hu.:llocks that were
alleged to have been lost through t; he negligence of
the defendant.

I Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Maud 'were counsel for
Ithe plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shee ;A:nd • Mr. Hannen
appeared for the corporation.
nT_he plaintiff in this action is a CE'rmer at Merton,
1, Surrey, and who also acts as t c cattle salesman.
awniot
Un. Saturday, the 15th of June, last year, it ap-
taZedbthat -97 bullocks were curl'. usted to him for
New
htherZev:eniiferent parties, and these bullocks,
met.ierentolthers that had! been sent by
f, , were placed in the lairs of the
beasts wec,r_l!'tan Cattle Market at Islington. The
Monday morZsafe on the folio wing day, but on
taken to the mar when the lvallocks were to be
two of them heaetillor sail?, it was found that
but atteariltniqfruircyl
were subsequently been af,eien. The .arcases
I
ild 1
te_,..? tried at the Cen-
person el Holloway, ae'l 'to the iy-Ossion of a
.:o,llvieted of receiving
tral Criminal Court,
6t12.1
0f,0,e,:i.
ti _i
ittiit;t:nni
me:, i
y.t_
41408
tlloi m
questi.i.::..
them krioaln,;„
le:lnisi(:,etoreletin. An ap
r. Pearson,
that they
the City' '`'llciL°l'
plication wiir-..,
, aim
been e
madeval utc;) eor'-.;3ollllP°tilti.,ol:3i toainlies' loss
and
r
to provide a place for
were not respASl .e • . 1 the present
bt :c,ught to try the
action was tlftrefore
The case on the part of 'the' corporation ~,,,,,s,
that
all they undertook to d o was
the sale of cattle, and tlytt they did not undertake
any further respousibii it.y.
A verdict was ultini areiv found for •
theplaintiff
for the amount claimed but leave .was given to the
defendants
to move tr., have the verdict entered in
their favour upon the (lc estion of liability.

WESTERN Cate* urr.—BODMIN, AUG. 7.
(&•I)re Mr. 4 ustice
THE MURDER AT LAUNCESTON.
John Doidge was'lllt licted for the wilful murder
of Roger Drew, at S Stephen-by-Launceston, on
June 7. In submit' Ling The case to the jury, Mr.
Stock, the counsel for the prosecution, stated that
Roger Drew, the r nurdered man, lived at Laagore,
near Launceston. He was 57 years of age, and
although he had , a wife she was in service, and
having no relati• re o:r servant he lived alone. He
occupied a small 4 tenement, consisting of a, kitchen