The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-04 00:00:00

CONDOM, T UESDA:'f. EVE NI NG, MARCH

CASTLE 'V. KITCHENER.

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Cripps appeared
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. J.
O. Griffits for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, Richard Castle, is a
miller at Duckington, and he sued the defendant,
S. Kitchener, a dealer in hay and corn, &c., at
Brighthampton, to recover damages for assaults
committed upon him on the 24th of November,
1861, and spoiling his clothes. The defendant
pleaded the general issue, and also a plea in which
he alleged that the plaintiff first assaulted him, and
justified assaulting the plaintiff in his self-defence.
It appeared from the evidence that on the day
in question the plaintiff met the defendant and
some other parties at the Anchor Inn, in Oxford.
The defendant had been to St John's College to
pay his rent, and there had been entertained with
the wine and ale for which, it was stated, that Col-
lege is famed, and the consequence was he was
somewhat excited; and it did not appear that he was
rendered quite sober by the four glasses of brandy
and water of which he afterwards partook at the
Anchor, in this city. The parties started on their
road home, but on their way they had occasion to
pass the Red Lion, at Eynsham, and found it im-
possible to get further, and went in. They there
took more drink, the defendant adding four more
glasses of brandy and water to his previous supply.
Some conversation took place at the Red Lion, in
the course of which coarse language was used, and
in the result the defendant got up and shook the
plaintiff by the collar and tore his coat. The plain-
tiff started on his way home at a late hour, and was
followed by the defendant and two friends, shout-
ing and singing, in their cart; and when the de-
fendant overtook the plaintiff he got out of his cart
and again assaulted the plaintiff, by knocking in his
hat an pushing him into the hedge. Some proposal
was afterwards made to settle the action which the
plaintiff brought by the payment of the costs, but,
as the plaintiff wanted the defendant to pay £2O as
damages as well as the costs, the plaintiff proceeded
with his action. The trial occupied the rest of the
day, and ended in a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, £5.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
William Gibson, 23, labourer, and James Burn-
ham, 19, wood carver, were charged with felo-
niously setting fire to a stack of hay, the property
of John Allin, on Feb.B, 1862, at Sandford.
Mr. Somerset conducted the prosecution ; the
prisoners were undefended.
It appeared that, at about 10 o'clock on the morn-
ing of the Bth of February last, the prosecutor saw
the two prisoners asleep under a rick of clover hay,
about 200 yards from the Oxford and Baldon road.
He woke them, and cautioned them not to smoke—
a caution he was always in the habit of giving to
strangers under such circumstances, though he saw
to pipes or tobacco. At about 12 o'clock a Mr. Lowe
and his brother farmers at Baldon were driving into
Oxford, and saw the rick on fire and the two pri-
soners running away from it, Mr. Lowe tock one
of the prisoners in his gig to the prosecutor, and his
brother secured the other prisoner, and they were
afterwards both brought to Oxford in custody and
searched. Three inciter matches were found upon
Gibson, but nothing was found upon Burnham, and
though their defence was that they were smoking,
and set the rick on fire accidentally, no pipe or
tobacco was found upon either of them or near the
rick.

The jury found the prisoners guilty, and
Mr. Justice Crompton sentenced each of them to
six years' penal servitude.

WESTERN. CIRCUIT.—WINCHESTER, March 3.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
John Foster was indicted, for setting fire to a cask
and some straw, being in a building, with intent to
set fire to the building, with intent to defraud the
West of England Fire-office.
Mr. Bere conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Poulden defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner had a store in Port-
sea. About 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 9th of
October, some smoke was seen issuing from the pri-
soner's store. The prisoner was standing in the
street a short way off ; a person called to him and
told him to open the door of the store, as it was on
fire. The prisoner then leisurely opened the door
of the store. A cask was seen to be on fire within
the store. The prisoner took some straw and put
it on the fire, and said, " it, it will burn the
faster." He then came out of the store and lockod
the door. The prisoner seemed more like a man
put out of his temper than one in his sound senses;
he was like a madman. He was very much given
drinking, and was then in liquor. There was
one of the body went to the spot a good deal of
The
smoke
sodao
in
wtahsec a s
k. police were sent for, and when
issuing from the store. The officer went
to a, house near and saw the prisoner, He asked
him if it was his store that was on fire. The pri-
soner said it was. The officer asked him to come
and try and put it out. The prisoner said he should
not. A neighbour named Twigg got into the store
through the window, and some water being handed
to him he put out the fire. The straw and cask
were then on fire. The officer then went to the
door of the store and saw the prisoner. He
told him to come and open the door of the store.

The prisoner said' he should do no such thing.. The
officer told him that he should break the door open.
The prisoner told him he had no right to do so until
he brought the fire engine, as he was insured, and
put himself in a fighting attitude. The prisoner
shortly, however, unlocked the door. The cask had
been burnt, there were straw, wood, and•coals near
the cask. The fire having been put out the prisoner
locked the door of the store and said to the police-
man, " What odds was it to you if the d-d old
place had been burnt down, as I was well insured ?"
The policeman then asked him to go with him to
the stationhouse, and the prisoner walked quietly
with him. When they arrived at the station the
policeman gave him in charge for setting his store
on fire. The prisoner said if he had known that
was his intention he would not have come so quietly.
The conduct of the prisoner was very strange. He
had been drinking, but was not drunk. He said
he Supposed that his pipe must have dropped in the
straw when he went down to get some coal. Two
buckets of water put out the fire. The prisoner was
a grocer. The prisoner became very violent and
much excited when at the station. There were seve-
ral bits of lueifer matches lying about in the store.
_ _

The prisoner had had several attacks of delirium
tremens, and at the time in question he was drunk
and not master of his own actions. _

It was shown that the prisoner's premises had
been insured ever since November, 1851.
For the defence it was contended that the charge
was not fully made out, as there was no evidence of
any intent in the prisoner to set his premises on
fire or to defraud. It was evident that the prisoner
was in a state of madness that day and night, and
might have dropped some light fromshis pipe..
The learned judge having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
John Nicholas was indicted for maliciously
wounding Henry Leslie Kennedy, with intent to
murder him, at Aldershot, on the 7th November.
Mr. H. T. Cole and Mr. Massey prosecuted. The
prisoner was undefended.
This is a case that was for some time called the
Aldershot murder, but Kennedy having been shot,
and as was supposed fatally, by dint of great sur-
gical skill has ultimately recovered.
The prisoner was a private in the Military Train.
There was some theatrical performance at the Camp
at Aldershott. He had been cast to play some minor
part, but as he grumbled about, Kennedy, who was
sergeant-major, told him if he could not conduct
himself as a man he had better go home. The pri-
soner was much annoyed at this, and usod very
threatening language. About 12 o'clock at night
Kennedy went to his hut, sat down, and was in the
act of taking off his boots, when there was a knock
at the door. Kennedy said " Come in." The pri-
soner entered and asked Kennedy what accusation
he had against him, raised a short carbine which
had been concealed under his cloak, pointed it at
Sergeant-Major Kennedy, and shot him through
the body. The sergeant-major ran to the other end
of the hut and called out that he was shot. The
prisoner was instantly secured. He said to Sergeant
Ward " Don't you twist my arm ; you shall have it
next." The bullet was afterwards found in a book
on the table ; it was buried in the book. The pri-
soner was taken to the guardroom. He said he
should not have shot the sergeant-major if he had
not turned him out of the theatre. Upon being
taken to the police station the prisoner put on his
boots and said "All my trouble is over now; the
deed is done, and I shall hang for it, and deserve
it ;" that if he had had a weapon at the theatre he
would have shot the sergeant-major he was so
exasperated. He asked why his braces were taken
from him. He was told to prevent him hanging
himself. He said they need not trouble; let the
county find a rope ; let every trade find its own
tools ; that it was a shame to take his cap from him,
as they would find him a cap when he was hung.
Sergeant-Major Kennedy said that he heard the
report of the carbine, and felt a blow on his chest,
and he then became insensible. He was still under
the doctor's hands.

Mr. Reynolds, the surgeon—Between 12 and 1 in
the morning I was called to see Kennedy, who was
reported to have been shot. I found him lying on
the floor on his face, pulselesB, and apparently
dying. I found a bullet had penetrated the chest,
and passed out between the shoulder-blade and
and the spine. There was an escape of air,
which indicated an injury to the lungs ; the course
of the wound was upwards. The ball passed be-
tween the ribs, and did not injure the bone. For
a fortnight he was in a most dangerous state. I
then had some little hope.
The prisoner went into a rambling account of the
theatrical annoyances. Between drink and temper
he loaded his carbine and ran to the hut to know
more about it. When he got there he was more
mad, and took out the carbine, which caught in
something and went off, but he did not intend to
hurt the sergeant-major, as he had not offended
him, and he was the only man who would have
taken his part.
_ _

Mr. Justice Blackburn then summed up. The
question was whether it was the intention to kill
and murder Sergeant-Major Kennedy. Upon the
evidence there could be little doubt but that
the prisoner, if he knew what he was doing, in-
tended to killthe Sergeant-major.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The prisoner was then sentenced to be kept in
penal servitude for life.
(Before Mr. Collier, Q.C.)
Jeremiah Drake was indicted for stabbing and
wounding George Rook.
Mr. Beetham prosecuted, and Mr. Buller de-
fended the prisoner.
The prosecutor was a police constable, and went
to apprehend the prisoner on a warrant for poach-
ing. He took the prisoner into custody, and as
they were going along the road, in an unfre-
quented spot the prisoner tried to escape, and
stabbed Rook in several places with a knife.
Mr. Buller contended that the wounds were in-
curred by accident.
Verdict, guilty; sentence, 12 months' imprison-
ment.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT-RUTLAND, MARCH 1.

CROWN COURT.

Lord Chief-Justice Cockburn took his seat in this
court at noon, and commenced trying prisoners, the
majority of the cases being very ordinary and un-
interesting.
Charles Enoch Springthorpe was arraigned upon
the coroner's inquisition, and on an indictment
charging him with the manslaughter of James
Davy.
Mr. Cockle conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Merewether for the defence.

It appeared from the opening statement of the
learned counsel for the prosecution, and the evidence,
adduced in support of it, that the prisoner was em-
ployed by the London and North-Western Railway4
Company as a fireman, and in that capacity accom-
panied Meadley, the foreman in the erection of
engines, and Whittle, the driver, on an engine
making a trial trip from Wolverton to Bletcbley
and back. Upon the return of the engine from this
trip, Whittle, who was the person in authority, left
the engine to inquire of Mr. Donkin, the foreman,
what he should do with the engine, having given
no order that the engine should be moved or the
regulator touched. Mr. Meadley and Davy got
down, and Meadley then closed the regulator.
After Whittle had left, two or three men, among
whom was the deceased man, Davy, came to the
engine to examine it; and Davy for this purpose
put his right hand between the spokes of one of the
front wheels. The prisoner had then remounted
the engine, and was on the footplate, and, having
looked on each side of the engine, he went to the
regulator and opened and shut it ; this caused the
driving-wheel to go round, and Davy's arm was
wrenched from the socket, and himself thrown to
the ground with such force that his left arm was
broken. The injuries suffered resulted in his death
on the Bth of January following. On the part of
the prosecution it was represented that the act of
the prisoner in opening the regulator was unlawful,
as being an infringement of rule 257 of the com-
pany's regulations, which prohibits any fireman to
move an engine except when instructed by the
driver, and unless he has also an order from the
superintendent.

It was elicited, in the cross-examination of Mead-
ley, that when Whittle and himself got off the
engine it was not put out of gear, but left in mid-
gear only, with the regulator shut; and, further,
that according to rule 264, the duty of the fireman
upon getting down from the engine was not to
leave the engine in steam without shutting down
the regulator, and putting the engine out of gear.
Mr. Merewether contended that there was no in-
fraction of rule 257 by the prisoner, as he not only.
did not move the engine, but was not shown to have
had any intention to move it, and also that rule 257
was only intended to apply to engines on a journey.
For the effects produced by the opening of the regu-
lator the prisoner was not responsible, since it was
owing to the engine not having been put out of gear
by Mr. Meadley that the driving-wheel turned
round in such a manner as to inflict the injuries
which caused the death of the deceased. He con-
cluded by commenting on the affliction manifested
by prisoner when he perceived how terribly Davis
had been lacerated, and called witnesses to his cha-
racter as a careful and steady servant, and to prove
that nothing had been done by him but what a care-
ful fireman would naturally do under the circum-
stances, and that Davis's act in putting his hand be-
tween the spokes of the wheel was not an ordinary
or proper mode of examining the engine.
Mr. Cockle having briefly replier)
His Lordship summed up the evidence,
telling
the jury that the charge would not be made out un-
less they were satisfied that there had been negli-
gence on the part of the ?risoner • and. although

the deceased had been guilty of a want of proper
prudence, yet, if they thought that the prisoner had
been guilty of negligence which had caused the
death of the deceased, the deceased's negligence
would not be an excuse for that of the prisoner ; it
might, however, have been a reason for the prisoner
supposing that there was no one in the position in
which the deceased was at the time. There did not
appear to be any season to suppose that there was
any intention on the part of the prisoner to move
the engine, which at the time was standing on a
turn-table ; nor was it likely that a man acquainted
with the management of the engine, as he was,
would be playing tricks with it. There was con-
flicting evidence as to whether the act of opening
and closing the regulator was one of negligence,
and it was for the jury to say whether the prisoner
had been culpably negligent or not.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of not
guilty.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT-NORTHAMPTON, MARCH 3.

HANCOCK V. SAIINDERS..--BREACH OF PROMISE
OF MARRIAGE.
Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Beasley were for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., defended.
The plaintiff is the daughter of a respectable pub-
lican at Glopthorpe, near Oundle, her age 28.
Defendant is the son of a farmer, and gamekeeper
to the Earl of Cardigan.
The plaintiff's mether proved she had known
defendant from his boyhood, that he and her
daughter went to school together. In '1859 his
attentions became particular' to the plaintiff, and
he asked the father if he might have his daughter
Ann. lie asked also for £2OO as her fortune.
The father said " He did not know anything about
that at present." Defendant said to plaintiff,
" Never mind, I will marry you with nothing, and
when you are my wife I can save £5O a-year under
Cardigan." Defendant made her daughter presents,
he provided a wedding cake, and gave her daughter
some wild ducks. Plaintiff showed her a light
dress, and said it was to be her wedding dress.
Subsequently it turned out plaintiff was in the
family way, and witness told defendant it vas high
time they were married. Defendant said he had
intended to marry her daughter, but he would not
then, and she said, then he must pay for it. He
said, "If the lot fell upon him he must pay fer it."
A child was born last September.
A sister of plaintiff proved defendant said to her
in June, 1860, he would make her sister his wife;
that the day was fixed, the 31st of August, plain-
tiff's birthday ; that they were to be married in
London, at St. George's, Hanover-square.
Thomas Baker, assistant gamekeeper to Saun-
ders, proved that Frederick Saunders offered him
£4 if he would go up and swear falsely against Miss
Hancock, that he had seen her with some one else.
Never had seen her with anybody else.
Mr. Macaulay, for defendant, called no witnesses,
but complained that the form of the action had not
been seduction, when both parties could have been
heard. After the evidence given he could not deny
the promise.
Verdict for plaintiff—Damages £6O.