The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-22 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTEL LIGEIV CE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DERBY, MARCh 21.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams.?
Joseph Shaw, who was late yesterday evening
arraigned upon 13 indictments, charging him with
forgery and utterance of as many deeds of convey-
ance, pleaded guilty to each and all of the indict-
ments.
Mr. Boden, Q.C., and Mr. Huish were instructed
in the greater number of cases, and Mr. Stephen in
others.

His Lordship postponed passing sentence until
this morning, in order that he might, in the mean-
time, consult the Lord Chief Justice and lay the
depositions before him in a case of so great import-
MICE. • _ _ _ .

Upon Mr. O'BrietA application, his Lordship
granted him permission to address the Court pre-
viously to sentence being passed. .
The prisoner was brought up this morning, and,
having been in due form asked whether he had any-
thing to say why judgment should not be pro-
nounced against him,
Mr. O'Brien rose and addressed the Court to this
effect. He wa.l not, he said, instructed to offer any
remarks in palliation of the prisoner's guilt, but to
express the sorrow and shame which he felt, and
by which he was bowed to.the ground, overwhelmed
by the disgrace brought on by crimes into which
he had been led by embarrassments, the consequence
of imprudence in early life, and which had induced
him to betray the confidence reposed in him by his
clients. Day after day, and night after night, he
had felt that the day of exposure would be to him
a day of relief; the anguish and torture he had
endured were the severest punishment that he could
suffer. The learned counsel could offer no circum-
stances in mitigation, not even the circumstance
that, having recently been appointed to a place of
high trust and of considerable emolument, he had
proposed to lay aside the larger portion of the pro-
ceeds for the payment of thoso to whom he was
indebted. The resolution was in vain. As soon as
it was known that he was in receipt of a good in-
come his creditors in a body came upon him, and
the circumstances which led to the present prosecu-
tions became known. The sentences inflicted on
different prisoners, though nominally the same,
varied in their severity with the position in society
which the individual might happen to occupy.
Mr. Justice Williams said that though the elo-
quent and affecting appeal of the prisoner's counsel
could not fail to make him feel as a man great com-
passion for one who had fallen so low from the posi-
tion which he had held, yet, as a judge, he could not
but mark the heinous crimes of which the prisoner
had been guilty with a severe punishment. He had
enjoyed and abused the confidence of his clients, and
had persevered in a course of fraud, dishonesty, and
forgery, which but a short time since must have
closed his career upon a public scaffold. In con-
clusion, his lordship sentenced the prisoner to 15
years' penal servitude.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice.)
SHAW V. WOMBWELL.
Mr. Sergeant Hayes and Mr. Manley Smith
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C.,
and Mr. Merewether, for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case is the owner of about 40
small tenements, which he built himself, about Ilke-
ston, in this county, and the defendant is the pub-
lisher of a newspaper called the Ilkeston Pioneer.
The action was for a libel brought in respect of
certain articles which appeared in that paper in
October last, reflecting on the plaintiff's property,
and atributing a fever which prevailed in the neigh.
bourhood to the state of the drainage of the houses.
The plaintiff called a great number of witnesses,
and among others the county surveyor, who repre-
sented the plaintiff's property as superior to any
of that class in the neighbourhood or in the towns
of Derby lind Nottingham, the drainage good, and
the water excellent. The defendant, having with-
drawn all offensive observations, consented to a
verdict for the plaintiff for 40s.
HALL AND OTHERS V. TAYLOR AND OTHERS.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Hayes, and
Mr. Field appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Boden,
Q.C., and Mr. Stephen for the defendants.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs,
who were owners of a mine called the Hill-top
Mine,to use an ancient drain which they complained
that the defendants had obstructed.
In consequence of the length of time likely to be
occupied in trying the above cause, which it is ex-
pected will last fully two days and of the amount
of criminal business yet remaining, her Majesty's
justices have availed themselves of their power
under the 3d George IV., cap. 10, to postpone the
commission day at Warwick until Monday next.
That Act limits the power of postponement to 24
hours, but provides also that Sunday shall not be
taken into the computation.
A telegram has been sent to the High Sheriff of
Warwickshire informing him of the postponement,
and directing that the grand jurors be summoned
for Tuesday morning.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—SHREWSBURY,MAn,2O.

CIVIL COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron Channel] and a Common Jury.)

LEWTS V. PLACEY.

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Gray appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr.
W. H. Cooke for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, G. W. Lewis, is a
grocer and provision dealer at Broseley, in this
county, and he sued the defendant, William Placey,
a pork butcher at Stroud, in Glocestershire, to re-
cover damages for the breach of covenant in a deed
of apprenticeship, in removing his (defendant's) son
from the plaintiff's service before the expiration of
the term. The defendant pleaded several pleas,
alleging several grounds of justification, and among
others, that the terms of the apprenticeship
were that the plaintiff should exclusively employ
the apprentice in the business of a grocer and pro-
vision dealer, but that the plaintiff entered into and
carried on divers other trades and businesses, to wit,
the trades and businesses of a builder, brickmaker,
ironmonger, miller, and Methodist preacher, in
which said trades and business exclusively he em-
ployed himself and his apprentice, and neglected to
instruct the apprentice in the trade and business of
a groves and provision dealer.
It appeared the defendant's son was apprenticed
to the plaintiff in June, 1860, with a small premium
of £2O, and finally left in the beginning of the pre-
sent year. This arose from certain differences which
had arisen between the young man and his master,
who would not allow his apprentice to swear, and
required him to go to the Methodist Chapel twice
on Sunday, according to the understanding which
the plaintiff said had been entered into when
the deed of apprenticeship was agreed to.
The trial occupied the whole day, the object of the
plaintiff's evidence being to make out that the
young man was taken away without any sufficient
cause ; and that of the defendant's to show that the
plaintiff was too strict, and, on one occasion in par-
ticular, had gone out to fetch a policeman to give
the young man into custody, merely because he had
said " d—," and refused to come indoors and go to
bed at ten o'clock at night.l
In the result the jury found for the plaintiff—
Damages, £35 10s.