The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-08 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTEL LIGEIV CE.

HOME CIRCUIT, HERTFORD, March 6.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
George Felstead, a boy described as of the age of
14, was indicted for maliciously setting fire to
straw in a farm building a Ware, with intent to
injure the owner, his master.
The boy looked younger than his age in the
calendar, and it appeared from the statement of
the gaoler, he had only reached 14 while in gaol,
where he was received into custody on the 13th of
Ncvember. He sobbed and cried bitterly during
the trial, and it turned out that he was an orphan,
and that his parents had been dead several years.
It appeared that on the 7th of November, his
master sent him to the Post-office, his way to
which lay down a lane on which the building
abutted. Within a minute or two of the boy's
starting (a little after five o'clock) smoke was seen
to come from it, and it was found to be on fire.
The prisoner duly posted the letter, and was back
so soon that his master said that the boy could not
have loitered by the way. The only evidence of
importance against the prisoner consisted of cer-
tain statements made by him to the police, while
in their custody, to the effect that he had put a
lucifer match through a hole in the shed among
some straw, and some lucifer matches were found
in his pocket.
Mr. Woollett defended the prisoner.
The learned Judge pointed out to the jury that,
in the case of children under 14 years of age, there
was a presumption in their favour that they didinot
intend to do malicious injuries, unless their conduct
clearly led to the conclusion that they did so ; and
the que3tion was whether, when the prisoner put
the match into the shed, he was fully aware that
the necessary or natural consequence would be to
set the building on fire and so to injure his master.
If the jury were satisfied of this they must convict
him ; if they doubted it they might properly acquit
him. There did not appear to have been any mo-
tive for the act.

The jury consulted a few minutes, and found the
prisoner guilty, but strongly recommended him to
mercy on account of his youth.
The learned Judge, in passing sentence, said that
such cases were, of all others, the most embarras-
sing with reference to the punishment to be inflic-
ted. The sentence would be that the prisoner be
imprisoned two weeks, and then sent to a reforma-
tory for three years.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—DuttIiAm, MAncir 5.
Mr. Justice Willes proceeded to try common jury
causes.

WALTON V. ARMSTRONG.

This was an action for breach of promise of
marriage.
Mr. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Jones were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Davison for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a young woman
of about 27 years of age, whose father had been a
respectable farmer at Rackwoodside, near Lanches-
ter, in the county of Durham. The defendant was
a young man, 31 years of age, living with his
father, also a farmer in the same neighbourhood.
The plaintiff and defendant had been acquainted
some three years, and since the month of March,
1860, the defendant's visits to Itackwoodside
had been constant, usually occurring in the
evening, and he spoke to Mrs. Walton of
his intention to marry her daughter. They were
then considered to be engaged, and the young
lady began to furnish herself with wedding clothes,
when a coolness arose, and the defendant married a
Miss Wilkinson who had previously sworn a child
against him.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £l5.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—LEICESTER, MARCH 6.
At half-past 9 this morning Mr. Justice Williams
took his seat in the Borough Hall, a long low build-
ing built in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, open
from the floor to the cross-beams and rafters of the
roof, and ornamented with paintings of Henry Earl
of Huntingdon, Hastings, and Hungerford, Knight
of the Garter, and of Sir Thomas White. It is long
since the assizes were held in this ancient halt, the
date of which, as shown on a part of the old carved
pannelling, is 1586.
George Robinson, charged with having forged
and knowingly uttered at Leicester, on 17th Aug.
last, an order for the payment of ;£5, pleaded not
guilty.
11. Ir. O'Brien conducted the case for the prosecu-
tion; the prisoner defended himself.

Mr. Cooke, a corn factor, proved that the prisoner,
who was altogether a stranger to him, came to his
place of business on 17th Aug. and said that Cooke's
name had been mentioned to him (the prisoner) as
being a likely person to undertake an agency for
the sale of Baltic commodities, and that he (prisoner)
was one of a firm engaged in chartering a vessel for
the Baltic, At the same time he showed witness
what purported to be a bill of lading. Cooke gave
no positive answer to the proposal, and the prisoner
went away. He returned at 9 p.m. of the same day
and stated that he was placed in unpleasant circum-
stances, as his landlady had sent up the bill to him-
self and a companion of his for payment, and that it
had only just then occurred to him that he had ne-
glected to get cash at Poterborough for a check he
had received there, and asked Mr. Cooke whether it
would be too great a favour to desire him to cash it.
Witness said, not if it was a genuine check ; he was
then called out, and saw the i 0 boots" of the inn at
which the. prisoner had been staying. On returning
to the prisoner he presented a check on plain
paper, purporting to be drawn at Peterborough on
the Stamford, Spalding, and Boston Bank, the
writing being, as the witness noticed, in the same
hand as that on the bill of lading he had seen in
the morning, and he gave it back refusing to cash
it. The prisoner alleged that he had received it in
Peterborough from a Mr. Clayton, to whom he lent
£5 when they had niet in London, but who he stated
was a stranger to hiel,
and whose residence he did
not know. Mr. George Clayton, the only Clayton
who could be found in Peterborough, proved that
the check was not in his writing. No one bearing
the name of Matthew Clayton (the name signed to
the check) could be found.
He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.

The Lord Chief Justice took his seat in the Castle
at
half-past 11, on the Crown side, and having
charged the grand jury proceeded to try prisoners.
The majority of the cases were such as are triable
at the quarter sessions, and of little general interest.
Mr. Justice 'Williams, having cleared the borough
gaol, proceeded to the Castle, ancl took his seat in
the Nisi Prius Court to try the only defended cause.

PARIOL'No AND WIFE V. SCOTT AND WIFE.
Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Cockle were counpel for tile

plaintiffs ; Mr. Sergeant Hayes and Mr. Field for
the defendants. _

The action was brcnght to recover damages for
slanderous and defamatory words malicioasly spoken
by Mrs. Scott of Mrs. Parkyns imputing unchastity.
The declaration stated as special damage that Mrs.
Parkyns's husband had left her in consequence of
the slanderous words and had since lived apart from
her. Mrs. Parkyns was somewhat over 30 years of
age, and had been 10 years married to her husband,
who was of the same age, and by whom she had four
children. Both, it was stated, were in a respectable
position in life, Parkyns being the manager of a
business the conduct of which took him from home
for long intervals. Mrs. Parkyns and he resided with
her mother, and the defendants were neighbours
who had been in the habit of using a passage near the
plaintiffs' house. Some dispute arose on the 28th of
December about damage done to a wall, and this led
to altercation and abusive language, in the course of
which the words complained of were spoken. On
Mr. Parkyns returning on a Friday his wife in-
formed him of what had been said of her. He was
much disturbed, and on going to his work on Mon-
day morning said he would not live with her until
the matter was cleared up. She had since been to
him several times to entreat him to return, but ho
would not do so.

On cross examination, Mr. Parkyns stated that he
had seen his attorney before leaving his wife. He
had seen his own brother, but had not left his wife
on account of any advice that he could not other-
wise sustain his action,
Mr. Sergeant Hayes, on the part of the defendant,
submitted that there was no such special damage
made out as was sufficient to sustain the action. The
damage alleged was the loss of the society of the
husband, which had never yet been held to be such
as would support an action of slander. There was
this further objection, that the damage, if sufficient,
did not flow directly from the defendant's slander,
but from the wife's repetition of it. " Ward v.
Weeks" (in 6 Bingham), was an authority for that
position.
The learned Judge said that, although that had
been decided, yet it was otherwise if the communica-
tion of the slanderous words was made in the per-
formance of a duty, as in " Cantillon v. Maltby,"
where the communication was by a magistrate in
the discharge of his duty. He would not therefore
stop the case, but would reserve leave to move, in
the event of it being necessary.
Mr. Sergeant Hayes then addressed the jury,
contending that the words used by Mrs. Scott in the
course of a violent quarrel between angry women
were not intended to convey the imputation supposed,
but were merely angry abusive words ; and that Mr.
Parkyns' conduct in leaving his wife was with refer-
ence to rendering the contemplated action sustain-
able; and not because of his believing that the
slanderous words spoken were true. The jury
must take care, also, that they did not make
Mr, Scott responsible for the abusive words which
it was proved were spoken by his stepson as well as
his wife. He concluded by calling a number of
witnesses, all, indeed, who were present at the
brawl between Mrs. Scott and Mrs. Parkyns, who
denied that the words sworn to by Mrs. Parkyns
were used by Mrs. Scott, who herself also denied
them. Having summed up this evidence,
Mr. O'Brien replied, and
The learned judge having summed up the evi-
dence, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with
40s. damages.