The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-23 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, Dec. 22.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
POACHING.

John Catt, Thomas Foreman, and Eli Simmons
were indicted for night poaching and unlawful
wounding at Tamworth on the 22d Nov. last.
Mr. Addison appeared for the prosecution ; the
prisoners were defended by Mr. F. J. Smith.
From the opening statement of the learned
counsel for the prosecution it appeared that on the
night in question two gamekeepers in the employ of
Mr. Goddard, of Somer-hill, Tunbridge, were
watching a preserve on the estate, when the sound.
of firearms attracted their attention. Proceeding in
the direction from which the sound proceeded they.
found the two prisoners, Catt and Foreman, in a
cover, called Burgess's Wood, and they saw some
pheasants on the wing close to the spot. One of
the gamekeepers then seized hold of Catt, and en-
deavoured to detain him. He was immediately
struck very violently on the head with a gun by
Foreman. The blow compelled him to release his
grasp, and Catt then, as soon as he was free, jumped
back and struck the unfortunate man again on the
head with the butt-end of his gun, and, not content
with this, actually broke one of his arms in three
places by means of the same instrument. An under-
keeper then came to the rescue, and struck Catt on
the head with a stick. He was immediately knocked
down by Catt, who went so far as to strike him
when he was on the ground. Other men, appa-
rently belonging to the same party of poachers,
were observed close to the spot where all this occur-
red, and amongst them the prisoner Simmons, who
was armed with a bludgeon, with which, it seems,
he struck one of the keepers. The evidence against
him was not so strong as against the prisoners Catt
and Foreman, who were wel known and positively
identified. When they were apprehended and
searched some pheasants' feathers and wet leaves
were found in their pockets, and near to the place
where the affray in the wood occurred there was
found a brass ferrule, which exactly fitted a gun-
stock proved to be the property of the prisoner
Foreman.
A great many witnesses were called, and their
evidence supported in substance the opening state-
ment of the learned counsel.
It was elicited in cross-examination that the en-
counter in the wood only lasted for about three
minutes, and that there were no marks of blood on
the gun-stock traced to Foreman.
In addressing the jury for the defence, Mr. F. J.
Smith contended that it was not satisfactorily proved
that Catt and Foreman were the men who committed
the assaults in question. The jury must bear in
mind that the struggle which they had heard des-
cribed took place in a thick wood on a murky morn-
ing in November. But whether those two men were
concerned in the affray or not, he said it was greatly
to be regretted that the keepers had provoked re-
sistance by attempting without any kind of warning
forcibly to apprehend persons whose names, accord-
ing to their own account, they knew, and whom they
could have summoned before the magistrates at any
time for the less serious offence of simple poaching.
As to the prisoner Simmons, he (Mr. Smith) be-
lieved he should be able to establish an alibi.
Two or three witnesses were accordingly called to
prove that this prisoner was sleeping at a public-
house in the neighbourhood on the night in question.
Mr. Addison replied on behalf of the prosecution,
and, after a very careful and impartial summing up
by the learned judge, the jury found a verdict of
guilty against all the prisoners, but they recom-
mended Simmons to mercy.
In passing sentence his lordship observed that as
far as Catt and Foreman were concerned this was
one of the worst cases of night poaching with vio-
lence that had ever come before him, and he sen-
tenced them to five years' penal servitude. The
case against Simmons was very different, and having
regard to the recommendation of the jury, he should
pass upon that prisoner the lenient sentence of six
months imprisonment, with hard labour.
INC ENDIARI S.M.
John Stock, 22, a private in the Royal Marines,
was indicted for having, on the 23d of August, .set
fire to a stack of wheat, the property of John Rose
Baker.
Mr. R. S. Wright procecuted ; and Mr.
H.
Ormerod defended the prisoner.
It appeared that on the day stated in the indict-
ment, about half-past one' o'clock, the prisoner was
observed to go along a private road towards the
stack, and in a few minutes was seen to return back
by the same way. Immediately afterwards the
stack was observed to be on fire. The alarm was
given ; and suspicion resting on the prisoner he
was apprehended on the spot by one of the farm
labourers. • On having been taken to the police-
station he said he saw a civilian set fire to the stack.
On being searched a lucifer match was found in his
pocket, and also a bank book It was also proved
that on the morning of that day he had been seen
in a public-house in the neighbourhood, where he
procured some lucifer matches, saying they would
be useful to him in the guard-room. He also said
he was sick of the service, and would be glad to
leave it in any way he could. This statement was
relied on on the part of the prosecution as suggest-
ing the prisoner's motive for committing the alleged
arson, soldiers having frequently been known to
commit this offence for the purpose of being dis-
charged from the service.
Several witnesses were called, who testified to
the facts above stated.
For the defence, Mr. Ormerod contended that
the circumstances of suspicion were not strong
enough to bring home guilt to the prisoner. As
for the fact of his having been seen near the place
where the fire took place, it may happen to the
most innocent man. Then, what other criminative
fact existed against the prisoner ? As to the lucifer
being found on him, and his procuring some the
same day, it was very natural for a person in his
position to have them for the purpose of lighting
his pipe.' The possession of the bank-book showed
not that he was a desperate character, but rather
that he was an industrious and saving man. And
if, as alleged, he wanted, by committing this crime,
to be discharged from the army, why did he not
confess he did it when he was apprehended ?
His lordship, in summing up the evidence, said
the learned counsel for the prosecution had, in his
very able speech, put everything which could be
urged in favour of the prisoner before them, and
they were bound to give them the weight they de-
served.
The jury at once returned a verdict of not guilty,
and the prisoner, having been cautioned by his lord-
ship, was discharged.
This concluded the business of the session on the
Home Circuit.
FELONIOUSLY WOUNDING.
Charles Hills, aged 43, a carpenter, was indicted
for feloniously wounding Susannah Hills.
The Hon. E. Stanhope prosecuted. The prisoner
was undefended.
In this case the prisoner and prosecutrix were
mother and son. The case against the prisoner was
that he had been heard to utter the most dreadful
threats against his mother, and that he had struck
and kicked her in the most brutal manner.
When, however, she was called up to give evidence,
she declared she had no recollection of what took
place on the day in question, alleging that she was
subject to fits, and remembered nothing of the
alleged assault.
The learned judge then told her to stand down,
and the other witnesses were called, who proved that
she was quite bruised and bleeding on the occasion
referred to, and a witness swore that the prisoner
uttered a threat of violence against his mother some