The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-09 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—LEICESTER, Dec. 8.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
Mr. Justice Mellor charged the grand jury for the
county of Leicester this morning, and afterwards
proceeded with the trial of the county prisoners, all
the borough prisoners having been disposed of yes-
terday.
Charles Easom, 17, farm servant, was charged
with feloniously setting fire to a stack of straw, the
property of William Austin, of Kirby Bellars.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Inglesant appeared for the prosecution. The
prisoner was undefended.
It appeared that on the evening of the 2d of Sep-
tember the prisoner went to the house of the prose-
cutor, for whom he was working, and wanted some
beer, which was refused, and he thereupon asked for
his money and went away. He was out for a few
minutes, and then came in again at about 9 o'clock
and went upstairs as if to go to bed. The prosecutor
very shortly afterwards went out and found the stack
on fire. A boy was called who had seen the prisoner
soon after the dispute about the beer, and prisoner
said to him that he would burn the house down and
everything in it ; he had a lantern at the time
and a lighted candle in it. Witness remained in
the stable, and shortly afterwards he saw a light
as of a fire in the stick-house, and saw the prisoner
trying to put it out. He put it out, and told witness
not to say anything aboutit. The witness, in answer
to a question from his lordship, said that he had
had a quarrel with the prisoner, but he could not
remember what it was about. Another witness, the
prosecutor's servant maid, was called, and said that
she asked the prisoner about the fire in the stick-
house, and he said he didn't know how it occurred,
unless a straw got into the topof the lantern. When
he went out after the dispute about the beer he was
away about five minutes, and when he came in again
he went up to bed ; but did not get into bed. When
asked to go to Melton for assistance he refused.
When the prisoner was apprehended he said to the
boy who was called as a witness, " Don't you say
anything about how it was done."
His Lordship having summed up, the jury found
the prisoner guilty.
His Lordship, in passing sentence, said—Charles
Easom, you have been convicted of this most serious
offence. I cannot imagine anything more wicked
than setting fire to straw, hay, or corn, which are
necessarily left very much unprotected. Though this
appears to be your first offence, it is one of such
gravity that I don't think I shall be doing my duty
by sentencing you to a less sentence than seven
years' penal servitude.
Win. Lodan, 24, groom, Eliza Lodan, 20, and
Mary Ann Edwards, 21, were charged with break-
ing and entering theparish Church of Burton Lazars
and stealing two surplices, the property of the
churchwardens of the parish.
Mr. Palmer prosecuted. The prisoners were un-
defended.
It appeared that on the 22d September last it was
found that a window of the church had been broken
open and two surplices stolen. At about 11 o'clock
on the morning of the 23d Edwards called at the
shop of a general dealer at Melton Mowbray and
offered a petticoat skirt for sale. This was after-
wards given up to police-constable Ransom; who now
produced it, together with some pieces of linen which
were found in possession of the three prisoners at a
publichouse at Loughborough. The wife of the
parish clerk gave it as her opinion that the petticoat
and other linen were portions of the lost surplices,
and she swore positively to a button which she had
sewn on to one of the surplices after it was washed
the last time. She also spoke to some marks where
the linen had been scorched in ironing. The prisoner
Edwards, when apprehended, denied selling the skirt.
It appeared that the prisoner Eliza Lodan was
the wife of the male prisoner, and his lordship there-
fore directed her acquittal.
On the other two prisoners being called upon for
their defence the male prisoner read a somewhat
rambling statement, in which he admitted most of
the facts spoken to by the witnesses, but stated that
his wife bought the petticoat, which Edwards sold
for ls. 4d., and that the policeman asked Edwards
if she sold a skirt for 35., which she denied, but she
did not deny selling a petticoat. This, however, the
policeman contradicted.
The jury found both the prisoners guilty, and
they were sentenced to nine months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.--WiNcnEsun, Dec. 8.
Mr. Justice Willes opened the commission for
holding the winter assizes for Hampshire yesterday
afternoon in this city. This morning the Judge
attended Divine service at the cathedral, and then
proceeded to the Castle and commenced business.
The calendar is heavy.
Thomas Lloyd was indicted for forging a Post-
office order for £4 is. at Aldershott on the Bth July.

Mr. Poulden and Mr. Hooper were counsel for
the prosecution.
It appeared that the prisoner was a private in
the 13th Light Infantry, stationed at Aldershott.
On the Bth of July the prisoner went to the post-
office at Aldershott and obtained an order for Is.
on the post-office at Liverpool, payable to John
Sewell, a jeweller there. On the 9th of July Sewell
received a letter, enclosing a post-office order
for £4 Is. The letter requested Sewell to send him
a patent lever silver watch, directed to Thos. Lloyd
at Aldershott. Upon Sewell receiving this he took
the order to the Liverpool post-office, and it was
then found that the letter of advice was only for Is.
The order and letter were detained at Liverpool,
and an answer acknowledging the receipt was sent
to the prisoner. On the 14th of July the prisoner
went to the police-station at Aldershot and said he
wished to be taken before a magistrate to give him-
self up for forging a Post-office order for £4 10s.
The prisoner complained that the medical officer
of the regiment was not present or he could have
given important evidence on account of his having
been for some time under his care.

The learned Judge said that if the verdict went
against the prisoner every inquiry should be made,
but he could not adjourn the trial.
The prisoner then read a long statement to the
jury urging, that the evidence was not corroborated,
and that the jury could not convict him.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The Judge said, in consequence of his having re-
ceived a letter from the colonel of the regimentsug-
gesting a doubt upon the prisoner's state of mind,
he should not pass sentence until he had made more
particular inquiries.
Eli Guy, a young lad, was indicted for throwing
a stone at a railway carriage of the Isle of Wight
Railway, with intent to injure or endanger the
safety of persons in the train.
Mr. Bullen prosecuted.
On Tuesday last, the sth December, as the train
was approaching Brayling-bridge the guard saw a
boy on the bridge holding up his hand. Asthe train
went under the bridge a stone came through the 1
window of the guard's van, scattering the glass in all I
directions. Another boy who was with the prisoner
saw him with a stone in his hand, andthe told him not
to throw it, as he could not tell what injury he
might do. The prisoner was taken into custody that
night, and he said he had dropped the stone upon
the carriage. The Judge said if any good strong
relation of the prisoner was in the court who
could be trusted to do what was right he should
know what to do. His lordship then said—The pri-
soner was indicted for a felony, and the jury must
be satisfied that the prisoner dropped or threw the
stone with intent to injure or endanger the safety
of persons in the carriage. It was a case of great
importance to the public. If the prisoner had been
indicted for a misdemeanour he should have told the
jury to convict the prisoner, but here he was charged
with the intent to injure or endanger the safety of
the persons in the carriage. They must; therefore,
be satisfied of the intent of the prisoner.
The jury found that there was no intent.
The Judge said he might stand down till the morn-
.

ing. --
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—MANCHESTER, Dee. 7.

CIVIL COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron Pigott and Special Juries.)

THE LONDON AND NORTHERN BANK V. EOGSON AND
ANOTHER.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for £BO
9s. drawn by defendants, accepted by a Mr. Moor-
house, and endorsed by the defendants to the
plaintiffs.
The only point in this case was whether or not
the bill in question bad been renewed. The plaintiffs
had discounted the bill which was subsequently dis-
honoured, and notice of the dishonour was given to
the defendants. Another bill, which was antedated,
so that it appeared to have been drawn before the
notice of dishonour, was subsequently drawn and
handed to the manager of the plaintiffs, who kept it
in his own possession, and neither negotiated it nor
sent it up to the bank in London. This bill ulti-

mately became worthless through thefailure of Moor-
house, and the present action was brought on the
defendant's endorsement upon the original bill. No
notice of dishonour of the second bill was given,
and it was contended for the plaintiffs under these
circumstances that it had never been accepted in
renewal of the former bill.

The jury found a verdict for the defendants, and
characterised the conduct of the manager ns unbusi-
nesslike. Mr. Temple subsequently obtained stay
of execution.