The Sun.
London, England, 1865-08-01 00:00:00

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.-CAMBRIDGE, July 31,

Her Majesty's judges of assize came from Huntingdon
on Saturday, and the Lord Chief Baron opened the com-
mission. There aro 15 prisoners fox trial and seven causes,
of which three aro to be decided by special juries.

CROWN COURT.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron.)
George Cox, a shepherd, was charged with stealing 20
sheep, the property of his master, William W. Asplon, of
Cherry IfintoL.

Mr. Naylor appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Cockorell
defended the prisoner.
The prisoner was to have been tried at tho last quarter
sessions, but upon the motion of his counsel tho trial was
postponed. At the Spring assizes held at Huntingdon this
year, the prisoner was tried for stealing 20 sheep, the pro-
perty of a Mr. Reynolds, and acquitted. The facts of the
case really are that the sheep the subject of that indict-
ment were used to replace 20 sheep missed from Mr.
Asplon's flock, for on Mr. Reynolds selecting and identify-
ing the sheep it was found that 20 of Mr. Asplen's were
missing. The defence upon that occasion was that the
sheep being in fields near Mr. Asplen's farm had got mixed
with his flock. What had become of the twenty missing
was a mystery. Since the fonnor trial inquiries have
been made, and to-day witnesses were called who bought
of the prisoner in November last four sheep, and another
witness proved buying five of him in December. This
leaves 11 unaccounted for, and as the master, Mr. Asplen,
swore that the nine sheepwere sold without his knowledge
or authority, and that he was never told of the sale, the
case for the prosecution was that they formed part of the
20 stolen from him. The prisoner contrived to got rid of
three of the sheep by driving 13 to market instead of 10, as
ordered by his master. One of the sheep he sold was die-
eased, and the man who bought it on cross-examination
said he bought it cheap, and sent it to Newgate-market for
sale. Tho usual price, he said, for good mutton was Bd.
per lb., bat for this he could only get 6d.
After hearing the summing up of the learned judge, the

jury convicted the prisoner.
Sarah Timms, a respectable-looking woman, 65 years of

ling-house of Jane Brimley, at Whittlesea, in the IBle of
Ely, on the 12th April last.

Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Markby appeared for the
prosecution; Mr. Naylor defended the prisoner.
The fire took place about half-past 4 in the afternoon,
and was discovered by some children at play. Smoke was
FIMII issuing from the roof of the cottage in the occupation
of the prosecutrix, and the mother of the children who gave
the alarm took some water, threw it on the burning thatch,
and at once put out the fire. Pulling out a piece of the
thatch a knife and a piece of old rag fell to the ground, and
in the rag some red hot cinders were found. The rag was
smouldering and was immediately put in water, by which
means the pattern on the rag was preserved. Twit the fire
was caused by the cinders and rag was unquestionable, and
the police endeavoured at once to find who had such rag.
After visiting several cottages they came to the prisoner's,
and in a box in a back room they found some correspond-
ing exactly in pattern, texture, &c., as they conceived with
that taken from the burning thatch. The case rested en-
tirely upon this circumstance and the identification of the
rag, and after several witnesses had been called the learned
judge said ho did not think any person ought to be con-
victed upon such bare evidence. Ile then directed the jury
to acquit the prisoner.

Nisi "'taus.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie.)
The first case tried was by a common jury.
MARSHALL V. MURRELL.

Mr. W. Cooper and Mr. Cockerell were for the plaintiff ;
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Markby for the defendant.
The case presented no feature of interest, and was simply
a question as to whether the defendant owed anything for
limo supplied to him by the plaintiff. The defendant's case
was that the plaintiff had the use of the kilns on condition
that he supplied him with what limo he required. Wit-
nesses were called on both sides, who contradicted each
other, and ultimately the jury found a verdict for the de-
fendant.