The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-27 00:00:00

ING, NOVEMBER 27, 1862.

towards ma, accompanied by his brother and his t
brother's wife. The prisoner came up to me, and
said to me, " Well, Sir, what have you done with
my wife ?" 1 told him that I had a wife of my own,
and that I did not want to have anything to do with
his wife. Directly I said this, the prisoner exclaimed,
"There," and at the same moment I heard the re-
port of a pistol, and felt that I was wounded in the •
side, and I became *Cry faint, and was assisted in- 1
to the shop, and the prisoner went away. He was
not more than two yards from me when he fired.
Cross-examined—The altercation that I have re-
ferred to took place on Friday night, and the pri-
soner and his wife left my house on the following
day. We had always been on very good turn down
to that time, and no quarrel had ever taken place be-
tween 'is. The pistol belonged to the prisoner, and
I had seen it in his possession before he left.
John Soe, a labouring man, living in the neigh-
, boarhood, proved that he was sitting outside a
public-hottse near the prosecutor's residence on the
night the affair happened, and he saw the prisoner
walking backwards and forwards in front of the
house before the prosecutor came out, He after-
wards saw him engaged in putting up the shutters
of his shop and the prisoner went up to him and
pointed the pistol de iberately at his side, and fired,
and when he had done so he weut into the Prince of

Wales public-house:
Mr. W. Austin, the landlord of the Prince of
Wales, deposed that the prisoner came into his
house about 10 o'clock, and he showed him a pistol,
and said, "This is what we poison or kill rats with
—I have done for him." liVitnees had heard the
report of a pistol just before the prisoner made this
statement'
The police-constable who took the prisoner into
custody deposed that from information he received
he went to the Prince of Wales publieehouse and
inquired if the man was there who had just shot
another man, and the prlconer came forward and
said he was the person, and he took him into cus-
tody, As they were going to the police-station the
prisoner made tome observation relating to its being
a fine night and the harvest moon, and that the la-
bourers would be able to work all night, and he
added that he would not be able to work all night.
Mr. W. H. Kempster, a surgeon, proved that he
was called in to examine the prosecutor shortly
after the occurrence and he found him lying on
the bed in a state of great exhaustion, and dis-
covered that he had received a pistol-shot wound in
the side. The injury was of a serious character,and
there -were still some shots in the body, and he had
no doubt that a portion of one of the lungs was de-
stroyed, and it was impossible to say, although the
prosecutor appeared at present to have partially re-
covered, what would be the ultimate result of the
injury he had received.
Mr. Langford addressed the jury for the pri-
soner at some length, and having called their at•
tention to the fact that the prisoner and the prose-
cutor had always been on good terms down to the
time when this transaction took place,he urged that
the prisoner had no doubt been excited to commit
the act by a feeling of jealousy; but he contended
that the evidence was not sufficient to support the
allegation that he intended to commit the crime of
wilful murder,and that the justice of the case would
he satisfied by a conviction for unlawfully wound-
ing.
Several respectable witnesses were called to speak
to the prisoner's character, and it appeared that
he had for some years been employed as a clerk at
the Westminster Bridewell, and they all described
him as being a kind-hearted, humane man.
Mr. Justice Byles having summed up, the jury
returned their verdict, finding the prisoner guilty
upon the second count, of wounding the prosecutor
with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
Sentence was deferred.
In the course of the day the grand jury returned
a et ue bill against Edward Capel Whitehurst, for
misdemeanour. A writ of certiorari has, however,
already been obtained for the removal of the cause
to the Court of Queen's Bench, so that no further
proceedings in the matter will be taken in this
court.
James Howard Percy, 23, a gentlemanly-looking
young man, described in the calendar as a labourer,
was indicted for feloniously and maliciously set-
ing fire to a stack of hay, the property of William
Baker.
Mr. Daly prosecuted.
This was a rather peculiar case. The prosecutor
is a farmer, at Hornsey, and on the night of the
25th of October a stack of hay belonging to him,
and which contained about fifty loads of hay, worth
£2OO, was set on fire, no doubt by an incendiary,
and the whole was consumed. On the same morn-
ing, and while the fire was still raging, the prisoner
presented himself at the Highgate police-station,
and said that he wished to give himself up for hav-
ing wilfully caused the fire that was then burning.
The police-sergeant told him that it was a very
serious offence, and he had better be careful, but
he persisted in the charge against himself ; and on
his being asked how he had set the etack on fire,
he said that he, in the first place, set fire to his
handkerchief, and then with the handkerchief set
fire to the stack ; and he described the part of the
stack that he had set fire to. The prisoner, it ap-
peared, at first gave the name under which he was
now indicted, but he subsequently stated to the
constable that it was not his real name, but he re-
fused to state who he wes, or where he came from ;
and notwi'hstanding all the inquiries that had been
made no information whatever could be obtained
respecting him.
The prisoner, when now called upon for his de-
fence, declared that all he had before stated was
false, and that he had nothing to do with causing
the fire. The fact was, he had been drinking, and
had spent all his money, and when he saw the fire
he thought if he gave himself up on the charge of
having caused it, he should obtain food and shelter,
and this was his only object when he gave himself
up to the police.
In answer to questions that were put to the police-
sergeant by the learned Judge, he stated that when
the prisoner was searched, only one halfpenny was
found upon him, but he was wearing gold studs and
a gold pin. It was also stated that the fire did not
appear to have broken out at that part of the stack
stated by the prisoner.
Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up, said this was
not the first time in his experience that a prisoner
had confessed himself guilty of a crime of this de-
scription, of which he was innocent, for the sake of
obtaining food and shelter ; but it was the province
of the jury to decide whether, upon the facts before
them, they ought to return a verdict of guilty
against the prisoner or not.
The Jury, after some deliberation, returned a ver-
dict of Not Guilty.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
John Redwood, 22, brace maker, was next placed
at the bar, charged with having, in company with
divers others, feloniously assaulted one John Roper,
with intent to rob him.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Cook appeared for the prose-
cution, instructed by Mr. Pollard, from the office
of the Solicitor to the Treasury.
The circumstances of this case lie in a very short
narrative. It appeared that the prosecutor, Mr.
John Roper, who was a commission agent, residing
in Argyle-place, was proceeding homewards along
Holborn, when an active police-constable, named
Davis, observed that he was followed by a number
of men, whose operations the officer noticed. He
observed that the prisoner came out from the body
of his companions, and seized. the prosecutor by the
throat with great violence and threw him on the
ground. The rest of the gang threw themselves
upon the prosecutor, but were interrupted in their
spoliation by the arrival of the witness, who sin-
gling out the prisoner, pursued and took him into
custody, when he was fully identified by the prose-
cutor as having been his principal assailant.
The jury, in this case, after some deliberation,
returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Baron Bramwell intimated to them that he
rejoiced to find that they did not jump at conclu-
sions, but carefully weighed and considered the evi-
dence adduced before they pronounced a verdict.
He should now, in this case, wish to be informed of
the antecedents of the prisoner.
It was then proved by a police-constable that he
had known the prisoner as a thief from the year
1855 to 1858. In the year 1857 the prisoner had
been summarily convicted at Bow-street for at-
tempting to rob a gentleman in the Strand. He had
since been convicted of a but glary, but in 1858 he
had enlisted as a soldier and had gone out to India,
whence he returned in June last. A City police-
constable proved that in October, 1858, the prisoner
had been convicted at Guildludl for an assault on a
gentleman with intent to steal, and had been then
sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Since
his return from India it was proved that the pri-
soner had been the constant associate of the worst
of thieves.

By direction of the learned Judge the prosecutor
(Mr. Roper) was recalled, and iu answer to inter-
rogatories from the Bench, stated that when he was
s‘jzed by the throat by the prisoner, of whose iden-
tity he was certain, he felt himself nearly strangled,
so tightly was his throat squeezed. He was unable
to speak or to call out, and the violence he suffered
had occasioned a spitting of blood, to which he had
never before been subject, but which had continued
to the present time.
The prisoner, when called up for judgmentsrod-
tested his innocence of the present charge. H
e but
mated that he had been previously convicted,
ted
that after he had. served his time he la
a
and had served his Queen and country in
India,enlis,
and
had been discharged from the service
e in consequence
sub fit
ted
that
him
i of consumptive appearances.
his state of health was such as toi
incapacitate