The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-05 00:00:00

MIDDLE SEX SESSIONS.—Feb. 4.

(Before the Assistant-Judge.)
The Governor of the House of Detention, Capt.
Codd, attended to answer the complaint preferred
by Mr. Best on Monday against him, of having re-
fused Mr. Justice Mellor 's clerk, with a solicitor
engaged for the defence, to see two prisoners.
They were admitted within the gates, and the inner
turnkey was informed that the gentleman was the
clerk to one of per Majesty's judges, and that he
attended to take the affidavits of the prisoners, it
being necessary that such a course should be taken
in order that an application might be made for a
certiorari. The turnkey refused to admit him, and
the reason given for the refusal was that he (the
clerk) had no letter from the judge to show who
he was. The Governor urged that this was neces-
sary according to the rules and regulations of the
prison as laid down by the visiting justices,
The turnkey went to inform him of the application,
but before he could get to the inner gate the judge's
clerk had left. He had however waited 20 minutes.
The Assistant-Judge said it certainly was an irre-
gular proceeding, especially as the turnkey was in-
formed of the purpose for which the clerk attended
—but no doubt it would not occur again.
Frederick Eyles, 18, waiter, was indicted for
stealing two sovereigns, the moneys of W. Brown-
ing, his master.
He pleaded guilty.
Mr. Tayler prosecuted ; Mr. Ribton was for the
defence.

---------
The prosecutor was a lodging-housekeeper, at 36,
Duke-street, St. James's, and the prisoner had been
in his service some months as a waiter. He was
" a young man from the country," and when he
entered the prosecutor's service he had but a shil-
ling in his possession, though when apprehended
he had a savings bank book showing a deposit of
£3O in the name of Mary Eyles. In consequence
of suspicion, marked money was placed in the
prosecutor's desk, and two sovereigns were found
in the prisoner's box. The prisoner had a latch-
key and used to let himself out at night after his
master's house was closed, and associated with
prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters; he kept
a girl, and had two opera glasses, one for his own
use, and one for her's.
His lordship sentenced him to six months' hard
labour, and in the most kindly manner expressed a
hope that on his liberation he would strike into a
good course of life ; if he did not he would be a lost
man.
James Daley, 29, hawker, was convicted of steal-
ing a watch from the person of Bristow Tully on
Hungerford Bridge.
The prisoner, when before the magistrate, con-
tended that he could not be sent to these sessions,
his point being that the offence was committed in
Surrey.
Lockyer, the prison officer, said this was with the
idea of his not being recognised as an old thief and
a frequent inmate of the Middlesex prisons. He
had been convicted four or five times.
The Court sentenced him to four years' penal
servitude.
James Hanshar, 31, lately a police-constable at
Hampstead, was indicted for unlawful:y and mali-
ciously wounding Sophia Hanshar, his wife.
Mr. Cooper was counsel for the prosecution. Mr.
Row den was for the defence.
The prosecutrix stated that on the 23d of Janu-
ary she wasat home at Burrows, llendon, when her
husband came home at about half-past one o'clock,
and asked her if any one was coming to take away
her things, or to go away with her. She said,
" No, decidedly, no one." Ho then said, "Will you
continue to live with me now." She said, "How
can I when you have used me as you have done P"
This referred to past times, more particularly
during the last 18 months. She was cutting out
work ; words having dropped, she received a fear-
ful blow on the head, and another as she was
trying to get away. She said—l turned round,
and saw that the blows were given by a poker
which he held in one hand, and as I closed
upon him, he kept me off, and again struck me.
I went round to the other side of the room: Oa be

there struck me again twice. I put up my arms to
save my head, when I received two more blows,
which disabled me. I fell, and as I was falling or
en the ground I received another blow which broke
my finger. I lay on the floor and pretended to be
dead to save myself from further violence. He
came in fruit of me as I lay on the floor, his coat,
which he had previously taken off, being then on.
He had not the poker. He looked at me, and took
hold of my injured hand and threw it down, saying
" I have killed you." He went out at the door, as
I thought, to escape ; but I staggered after him, be-
lieving that he had done that which would kill me,
and I did not wish him to get away. He saw me
coming after him and he stopped. I went across
the road, and a man came up and asked me to have
a policeman. I said " No. The defendant said
" I've done it." I then sat on same steps, and some
persons came to my assistance. My husband then
went away. This poker (produced) is the same I
was assaulted with. This chenille net (produced) I
was wearing when I received the blows.
From further evidence it appeared that the de-
fendant went to Mr. Growse, surgeon, at Hendon,
and asked him to go immediately to his wife, as he
was afraid he had murdered her. The surgeon
asked him what he had done that for. The defen-
dant then said she had dishonoured his bed, and he
should go and give himself up to Sergeant Hughes.
The surgeon found the prosecutrix with five con-
tused wounds on the head, no doubt caused by such
a weapon as a poker.
Sergeant Hughes said the defendant was a con-
stable ander him, and on the 23d of January he
came to him, surrendered himself in custody, and
said he believed he had killed his wife. The wit-
ness said " How so ?" The defendant said "By
hitting her with a poker," and he believed she was
dead. In answer to questions the defendant said
" Yesterday morning I found her having intercourse
with a lodger named Collier, who works for Hud-
son. To-day I wont home and found all her things
packed to go away with that man to-night, when I
certainly did hit her on the head."
Inspector Webb, Hampstead, said he booked the
charge against the defendant, who, after being
cautioned in the usual way, said—" Yesterday
morning I came from duty at six, and saw the night
duty go off. I turned down the road a little way,
and went after them. I turned and went home and
upstairs to bed. Joseph Collier, a lodger in the
house, slept in the same bed as I did; my wife slept
with her mother. When I had been in bed a quarter
of an hour he got up. My wife got up at the time,
and they both went down stairs together. I heard
whispering, and Collier said to her, ' You go home
for a week, and I'll send for you.' They went to-
gether into the middle room of the house, and I
heard more whispering. I got out of bed and stood
on the top of the stairs and heard this. They were
there a minute or two. I went down and found

them in a certain situation. I said, This is it, is
it ?' Collier said 'So help me God, I have not done
anything, James.' I said What is the use of your
saying that when I saw you ?' My wife aggravat-
ingly said, ' We did not, but our intentions were
good.' I ordered him out and he went." Further
he said to the Inspector,—" I have been dishonest
to my wife, and finding her in that position with
Collier I thought she was as bad as me. I wished
her to live with me; but she said she would not,
and that what I had found out and seen she in-

tended to write to me about. Next day I came
home and found her things packed up, going, as I
believed, and still believe she was going, to live and
cohabit with this Collier. I became very excited,
and, knowing hardly what I was about, hit her
with the poker."
The prosecutrix was subjected to a severe cross-
examination by Mr. Rowden—She denied that there
had been any improper familiarity between her and
Collier, but admitted that he had been in the habit
of kissing her. Letters had passed between them.
She was now living in Cirencester-place, and her
sister paid her rent.
Mr. Rowden, addressing the jury, said he could not
resist a verdict against the defendant for a common
assault, but he hoped the jury would, under the
circumstances, exonerate him from the more serious
counts in the indictment. On the defendant's be-
half he had to submit that, finding his wife in an
act of criminality with the man Collier, and after-
wards seeing that it was her intention to go and
live with him, he was morally, though not legally
justified in what he had done, and that the most
lenient course would meet the justice of the case.
His Lordship then summed up most carefully ;
and
The Jury found the defendant guilty of a common
assault, at the same time strongly recommending
him to mercy on account of the extreme provoca-
tion he had received and his character.
A witness proved that the defendant had been
nine years in the police, and bore a good character.
He had lost his situation in consequence of this
ease, and had two children to provide for.
His Lordship sentenced him to two mouths' im-
prisonment.