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

NORTHERN CIRCUIT-MANCHESTER, July 31.

These assizes commenced this morning at 10 o'clock,
before Mr. Justice Smith in the Crown Court, and Mr.
Baron Bramwell on tho Civil Side.

In charging the grand jury the judge said ho was glad on
this, his first appearance in that magnificent hall, to state
that the number of prisoners, considering the dense and
mixed population of the hundred, was not large, and that
there was no crime of special enormity ; still there were
some serious eases which would require careful attention.
There were several of homicide, and in throo of thorn bills
for wilful nun der would be set up. In two of those cases
tho quality of the offence would bo the chief question in
considering -whether the evidence supported the charge
of murder, or whether there were circumstances which
reduced the offence to manslaughter. There was no
case of homicide where the motive appeared to have
been gain; all had proceeded from passion and the
roused and angry feelings of the perpetrators. The first
case was that of Michael Giblin, alias Michael Kevlin,
charged with the murder of Fanny Connor, who for ten
years had lived with him as his wife. She left him fir a
man named Parr, with whom she had been for a few days,
when Ane evening the prisoner found them together in a

brothel. Tho prisoner stabbed Parr in the arm with a
knife, and Parr escaped. The prisoner then took up a
poker and beat his wife about the head, inflicting injuries
which caused her death, a few days later, in the Infir-
mary. If the jury thought the prisoner went to the house
with any deliberate intention to kill his wife, of course
there was no doubt the offence was murder ; but, if he
was provoked by sudden passion, upon seeing her with
another man in such a place, and by seeing that man
escape, and then in hot blood committed the deed with an
instrument not necessarily one which would cause death,
those matters would have to be considered in coming to.a
conclusion as to whether it was a crime of murder or not.
According to the woman's dying statement, tho prisoner
had threatened to give her a licking if ever she wont with
Parr. The immediate cause of the woman's death was
pleurisy ; but if it was brought on by exhaustion from loss
of blood from the blows, the jury must consider that the
cause of death was really the violence inflicted by the pri-
soner. There was another case, in which James Kelly was
charged with the murder of his wife. No doubt he caused
her death by cutting her throat. It was a most sad and
singular story. The husband and wife had lived together
upon perfectly good terms ; there seemed to bo no motive
whatever for the act, and the prisoner was clearly in a
morbid state of mind. He and his wife had before contem-
plated self-destruction together. He on one occasion made
an effort to strangle his wife, and he had actually spoken
of this to a neighbour, and showed the marks upon her
neck, and yet continued to live with him. One night ho
rose suddenly, beat his wife's head against the stairs, and
then cut her throat. There would be no difficulty in
coming to the conclusion that James Kelly caused his
wife's death ; but the question undoubtedly would arise
as to whether the man was in his right mind. The
question, however, as to the state of the man's mind had
better be left for discussion before the potty jury. In
another case Edward Hague and Robinson Jewett were
charged with causing the death of William Mellor. They
wore committed for murder, but a grave question arose as
to whether the evidence would support such a charge.
There was on the day of election at Oldham some affray
between parties wearing opposite colours. The two pri-
soners were on the ono side ; the deceased was in the
crowd on the other, but certainly did not appear to have
boon taking any part in the affray. There was very strong
evidence that the deceased was very savagely kicked by
Hague, but there was less evidence that Jewett joined in
tho attack. Those kicks were the cause of death ; and the
deceased was kicked about the body in various places after
he was down. Undoubtedly, there was general fighting
going on, and the men were in hot blood at the time of the
election. No weapons of any kind were used, and, although
the kicks were violent, they were not probably intended to
do any serious bodily harm, or to have resulted in the
death of the person attacked. If the jury thought the
blows were given in hot blood, and not with any intention
to do grievous bodily harm, or cause death, they would
probably think the crime was reduced to manslaughter.
There were some other cases of manslaughter, but none of
so serious an aspect. There were two cases of death said
to have arisen from negligent driving. In one case a child
two years old was run over, and in the other an old man
72 years of age. In the case of the child it was said that
the carter, instead of being with his horses, was at the
tail of the cart ; that the leading horse, in consequence,
knocked down the poor child; and that the wheel went
over it. If the jury were satisfied the child's death was
caused by culpable negligence, the prisoner was gulty of
manslaughter. In the other case, James Turner was
driving a spring cart at a rapid rate through the street,
some other persons being in the cart. It was suggested
that the prisoner was drunk at the time. The old man
knocked down was very infirm, almost blind, and very deaf.
Here again the jury would have to consider whether the
deceased met with his death on account of the culpable
negligence of the driver. In another case of manslaughter,
Joseph Wagstor was charged with killing his mother-in-
law. This certainly was a slight case. Tho mother-in-
law received a kick which was intended for the prisoner's
wife, in a quarrel between them. The mother-in-law
stepped in to separate them, and received the kick in the
lower part of her person. She thought nothing of it at the
time, but it became serious, and she died in consequence.
The act of the prisoner was unlawful, and although the kick
was not intended for the mother-in-law, if death resulted
from it, it was manslaughter. There was another case dif-
fering in circumstances, but not unlike it in quality. It
was a rather singular case. A barber named James Royle
had some quarrel with his wife in his own shop, and took
a kettle of boiling water off the fire and throw it at his wife.
The poor child was looking in at the window. Tho kettle
missed the wife, went through the window, struck the child,
and killed it. Tho prisoner, being at the timo in the commis-
sion of an unlawful act, was criminally responsible for the
act. There was another class of case which, it was to be re-
gretted, assumed in many instances a serious form. There
were several cases of rape. One was a gross and shocking
case, in which a woman was attacked by 10 men in succession.
Five prisoners—lads varying from 15 to 17 years of age,
were committed on the charge, the other five, who wore
older mon, had not boon apprehended. It was lamentable
to find that none of these five lads could read or write,
except one, who could only do so imperfectly. Such a case
might be appealed to as showing the advantages of educe-

had received any education at all, they would have been
found committing such a brutal act. One of the number,
at least, must have had sufficient control to prevent him-
self, and, perhaps, his companions, from committing so
serious an offence. The woman appeared to have been
overpowered, but there was nothing but the extremely
'shocking nature of the case calling for remark. There were
several burglaries upon the calendar. The only other case
calling for remark was one of abduction, in which a married
man was charged with taking from her father's house a girl
under the age of 16. The jury must be satisfied that tho
age was under 16, and that she was taken from her father's
care or custody. It was not necessary that the girl should
have been taken from her father's house, or that force should
have boon used. If she was taken merely from perstursiont
it was still abduction. The consent of the girl was quite
immaterial.
The trials were then proceeded with.

The cases tried to-day possessed but littlo interest in
either court.

Serious Election Riots at Maidenhead.

MAIDENHEAD, Monday.
This morning, at the Town-hall, before Mr. J. Smith.
the mayor, and Messrs. J. Higgs, W. Stephens, and J.
Golden, the sitting borough magistrates, the rioters incul-
pated in the alarming disturbances which took place in this
borough on the occasion of the polling for the six candi-
dates, Mr. Benyon, Col. Loyd Lindsay, Mr. J. Walter,
Lord Uffington, Mr. Bouverie, and Sir Chas. Russell, at the
recent Berks election, were brought up for examination.
The proceedings naturally excited the greatest interest
in the town, and the hall was thronged with an audience
principally consisting of the labouring classes, while eager
groups were stationed outside the building awaiting the
decision of the magistrates.
The proceedings commenced at ten o'clock, the first de-
fendant have been indicted by Mr. Superintendent Ire-
monger, on behalf of the Berks constabulary (several of
whom had been seriously injured in the riot), under the
Ist and 2d William IV., cap. 41, sec. 11,which empowered
the bench to inflict a penalty of £2O, or a certain amount
of imprisonment.
Henry Crockford, a slim, respectable-looking young man,
described as a shoemaker, was charged with having as-
saulted and beaten Police-constable Alfred Aldworth, of
the Berkshire constabulary, whilst in the execution of his
duty, ern the 20th of July.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Police-constable Alfred Aldworth, of the Berkshire con-
stabulary, said he remembered the 20th July, ho being on
duty in the town of Maidenhead, under the command of
Superintendent Iremonger. There was a groat disturb-
ance in the town, and some 400 or 500 people were near
the Bear. Suddenly he received a severe blow on the
side of his head, caused by a stone being thrown at him.
Ire put his hand to his head and found the blood running
from it. At the time he had his hat on, and the stone struck
on the right side of the head, above the brim of his hat. Ho
did not quite lose his senses, but while he was turning away
to go home Henry Crockford was pointed out by Mr.
Savage as the man who had thrown the stone. Crockford
was close by, and heard what was said. Mr. Iremonger,
on account of the injury, allowed him to go home at once
and have his head dressed. He was put on the sick list, on
which he remained till Friday, the 29th July. He saw
Crockford, who appeared sober, in the crowd. Many of the
windows in the Boar had then been broken. Ho was at the
door of the inn.
By the Prisoner—He saw him in the crowd after he had
been struck, but had not noticed him before.
Mr. Superintendent Iremonger, of the Berke constabu-
lary, said he saw the priioner on the day in question by the
side of the last witness, near the Bear. He had just turned
to give some instructions, when he saw the stone (produced)
—it weighed nearly a pornd, and was covered with blood)
strike him on the head, when the blood spurted out. Ald-
worth staggered after the blow, and witness told him to go
home and take care of himself. Witness saw Dr. Plumbs,
and requested him to attend him. Aldworth was on the
sick list from the 20th to the 29th.
Mr. John Savage, of Bridge-street, Maidenhead, deposed
that ho was near the Bear on the evening in question, at
about 7 o'clock, when there was a great disturbance and
many people there. They seemed to be kicking up a bother
and some of the windows in the Bear had been broken.
Ho saw Crockford standing on his left, close to him. He
lifted up his hand ant! threw a stone, which caught policc)-
constable Aldworth on the head. As soon as the police-
man was struck he pointed Crockford out as the man, and
witness said then, "I can swear that it was you who threw
the stone." Prisoner said, "Can you swear it was me ?"
and witness answered "Yes," upon which Crockford
brought several men to fight him. The stone was thrown
sideways from the Boar.
By the Prisoner—Ho was about a foot from him at the
time. After ho threw the stone witness went to a police-
man, when some of the blood fell on his hand, and he then
told him it was prisoner. No one told him that he had not
thrown the stone.
Police-constable Aldworth, in answer to the prisoner,

said he did not think that Savage walked up the street with

Sergeant Borlaso, of the Berks constabulary, said he was
on duty in front of the Bear Hotel between 6 and 7 on tho
evening of the 20th July. There was a great mob of people
there. He was with Police-constable Aldworth at the front
entrance, and his attention was drawn to the defendant,
who was then in the street. Ho saw Crockford put his
hand into his right-hand pocket, and in his loft he had a
white pocket-handkerchie!. Ho kept throwing at the police
four or five times. Ho saw him distinctly. 'Witness called
Finch and asked his name, and he said it was Henry Crock-
ford. Aldworth was on the left and witness on the right.
He saw the defendant throw a stone, which struck Ald-
worth on the head, who, had he not been supported, would
have fallen to the ground. He hoard Mr. Iremonger order
the latter to the station.

Prisoner, in defence, denied the charge, and called wit
nesses in his behalf.

The magistrates then retired, and after some little deli-
beration returned into court, when tho Mayor having com-
mented upon the serious nature of the offence, inflicted
upan Crockford a penalty of £5, with 12s. 6d. costs, or the
alternative of ono month's imprisonment.
David Woodford, of Bun-hill, Maidenhead, labourer ;
Thos. Huse, jun., of Bray, Berkshire, labourer ; and Chas.
Boto, Cookham, bricklayer, were then charged with assault-
ing and beating Police-constable Holdway, one of the Mai-
denhead police, on the day of the riot.
These cases were of a similar nature to the foregoing.
Evidence having been heard—
The magistrates again adjourned, and on taking their
seats once more in court fined Woolford £2 and 12s. 6d.
costs, and discharged Huse and Boto.

John Green, Cookham, labourer, was then charged with
assaulting Mr. Inspector M'Graw, of the Maidenhead
police, on the same day.

The eTidence in this case was of the same description as
in the others.

The Bench fined the defendant ls., with 9s. 6d. costs.
Henry Matthews, Maidenhead, carpenter, Joseph Gill,
Maidenhead, labourer, William Montague, Maidenhead,
labourer, Charles Pearce, Maidenhead, labourer, George
Winn, Maidenhead, labourer, George Burnham, Bray,
bricklayer, and Michael Saunders, Maidenhead, labourer,
were all charged with damaging the premises of Charles
Symonds Hooper, to the amount of £2, by breaking the
windows of the Bear Hotel.

Geo. Burnham and Michael Saunders were also charged
with having incited the crowd to riot.

The whole of the defendants, who were ranged in a row
in front of the bench, pleaded not guilty to the indictment.
Mr. Superintendent Iremonger said on the 20th July he
saw George Winn throw two or three times at the windows
of the Bear Hotel, and the stones broke several. He like-
wise saw Pearce break a pane by throwing a stone through
a window. Pearce owned breaking one. He identified
William Montague, who had broken a square of glass in the
parlour window by throwing a stone through it. He heard
Burnham telling the crowd to go in and bring Cannon out.
They were breaking the windows. He called out and said
Cannon had knocked him down, and twisted his fingers in
his hair. With respect to Saunders, some one knocked him
down without any provocation.
Mr. Inspector M`Graw deposed that on the day of the riot
he saw Gill throw three or four stones at the windows. Ho
would swear that ho broke one. Cannon knocked Burnham
down, and witness tried to persuade the latter to go away.
Burnham was calling out, " Fetch him out." Witness told
him not to incite the mob, as Cannon had gone, but Burn-
ham said, " We'll have him out."
Sergeant Borlase deposed that on the day of the riot ho
saw Burnham standing two or three yards from the door of
the hotel inciting tho mob to "Give it the police ;" " Pull
the house down ;" and "Bring out Cannon ;" and they
were breaking the windows.
By Burnham—Defendant said, " Pull the house down ;"
" Give it Cannon."

Mr. Hooper, landlord of the Bear Hotel, said on the 20th
July, a great many panes of glass were broken by the mob.
The smaller ones would cost 2s. each to replace, and the
larger 58.

On the defendants being asked what they had to say in
answer to the charge,
Gill said nothing in defence, Montague denied breaking
any glass, Pearce said he was out of the " bother" all day,
and Winn that he was not aware that ho had thrown any
stones, and did not think he was drunk. Burnham stated
that Mr. Cannon threw him on his back twice, and ho hal-
looed "Turn the Bisham Bull out." After some chaffing
Cannon had knocked him over.

This being the last batch of rioters for examination, the
magistrates decided upon discharging Matthews and Saun-
ders, while Montague was fined 55., 2s. for damage, and 9s.
6d. costs; Gill 55., 2s. damages, and 9s. Gd. costs ; Winn,
55., 48. damages, and 9s. Gd. costs ; Burnham, 10s., and 9s.
6d. costs.