The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-28 00:00:00

Old.

WHEAT, per qr. 601bs per bushel s. s.
Suffolk. Essex, and Kent, red ... 49 to 51
Ditto, white 52 54
Norfolk and Hunts., red 48 50
Ditto, white ... ... 50 52
Lincolnshire and Cambridge, red ... 47 49
Ditto, white ... 50 —'s2
Yorkshire, red ... 47 49
Ditto, white ... ... 50 52
Dantzic and Konigsburg, white .. 50 ___. 54
Lowerßaltic and Hamburgh, red... 47 49
Mediterranean, red ... ... 38 42
BARLEY, per quarter of 8 bushels:—
Norfolk and Suffolk... ...
Lincolnshire and Yorkshire
Scotch ••• ••• •••
Grinding ner •;.. 22 24
BEANS, per quarter of 8 bushels 631 b :
Small, fine ... ... 30 —33 30 —32
Ticks ... 29 —32 29 —3l
... 28 31
AFjo per stonereign.
:
10d to lld —d to —d
Feeding ... 9d to 10c1 —d to —d
Foreign ... 8d to 9d —d to —d
SHELLING, per loud of 2611 b ... 24 —25
MALT, per load of 6 imperial bushels 38 41
PEAS, per Imperial Quarter
Blue and white boilers
Grey and Feed

to —.

... 30 - 33
... 26 - 28

.•
VALS.

Rapeseed ... ... ...
Shelling ... ... ... 100
Linseed .. ... .. 875
Malt ... .. ... -
Flour... ... ... ... ...

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME- ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, July 25.
(Before Mr. Sergeant GAaELEE.)
John Joseph Clark, aged 27, was indicted for the cae
pital offence of burglariously breaking and entering the
dwelling-house of Augustus Munyard, and stealing two
watches, same plate, and other valuable property, and at
the time of committing the burglary it
Kas allege, that
the prisoner beat and wounded the prosecutor.
Mr. Hawkins prosecuted, and Mr. Charnock defended
the prisoner.
It appeared, from the very clear and concise statement
of the Learned Counsel for the prosecution, and the evi
deuce that was produced in support of it, that the offence
which was the subject of the inquiry, was committed
under very extraorainary and aggravated circumstances.
The prosecutor is a farmer, residing in a rather lonely
position in the parish of Meopham, and it seemed that it
was his custom not to allow his men servants to sleep on
the premises, and the only inmates of the house at night
were himself; his wife, and a Cmale servant. They re-
tired to bed at the usual hour on the Ist of June, and
about midnight the prosecutor was woke by hearing a
noise at his bed-room window. He at first imagined
there was an alarm of fire, and on his a
going towards the window he observed the
up and
the heads of
two men, who were apparently standing on the ladder.
The men were disguised by having their shirts over
their clothes, and a sort of white cap over their faces,
with holes in them to look through, and before the pro-
secutor had any opportunity to observe them particu-
larly, or to oiler any resistance, the window was crushed
in, and several men, all disguised in the manner stated,
jumped into the room and commenced a most brutal at-
tack upon the prosecutor with bludgeons, and one of the
ruffians also struck hide with an iron bar. He begged
for mercy, and at length he was permitted to get into
bed, and the villains then insisted upon having the
money that was in the house."" The prosecutor informed
them.that there rwaszoirfruitio:weneyeni the home At
the time, and they Thiteilemanded the plate, and' they
compelled the wife of the prosecutor to accompany them
down stairs and show them where it was kept, two of
the gang keeping guard over the prosecutor, while
the rest went down stairs to get the property. The
wife of the prosecutor then delivered up the money
that was in her possession, and also the plate„ and
one of the gang wrapped up the property in a
bundle, and took it out and delivered it to a confede-
rate, who was waiting outside. The prosecutor's wiai
was then compelled to get into bed again, while the
ruffians , ransacked the house, and white so engaged
they discovered a receipt for some money, upon which
they returned to the bedroom and repeated their demand
for money, asserting that they were certain there was
some in the house, and one of the ruffians declared that
if it was not given up he would set fire to the bed and
burn them both in it. The prosecutor still persisted in
declaring that he had no more muney, and at length the
gang of ruffians left the house, taking with them the
booty they had obtained. In consequence of the effectual
manner in which they had disguised themselves, neither
the prosecutor nor his wife was able to speak to the
identity of any of the persons concerned in the outrage,
and the only evidence they could give upon the point was
that the prisoner resembled in gait and general appear-
ance one of the men, but the guilt of the prisoner
was clearly established by the evidence of one
of the gang, a man named Prior, who was
admitted a witness for the Crown; and the cor-
roborative testimony that was adduced in support
of it. From the statement of the accomplice it
appeared that he had been living in the house of the
prisoner, a lodging-house at Gravesend, for a short time
before the burglary, and on the Wednesdy before it
was committed, the prisoner proposed to him to join in it,
and introduced him to four persons who were strangers
to him, but who, he said, were first-rate housebreakers,
and they arranged to commit the robbery on the Ist of
June. They then, he said, proceeded separately to the
.neighbourhood of the prosecutor's farms, for the purpose
of " sounding," and ascertaining what his arrangements
wore, and having discovered that none of the labourers
slept upon the farm, they resolved upon carrying out
their project as they had arranged. They, accordingly,
six in number, went to the prosecutor's farm, and having
obtained a ladder, it was placed against the bed-room
window, and some of the gang went up the ladder, for
the purpose of forcing their way into the bed-room,
while the accomplice Prior was set to watch another
part of the house, to see that no one left the premises
in that direction, and he was instructed to knock out
the brains of any one who attempted to do so. The
prisoner Clark, it appeared, was at first stationed at the
foot of the ladder, to give an alarm if any one ap-
proachtd, but after his companions had been in the
house a short time he joined them, and assisted in
the search for plunder. Witnesses were examined in
corroboration of the accomplice's story, who proved that
the prisoner was in his company on the day the robbery
wa, committed, and that he had also been seen near the
farm of the prosecutor, making inquiries with regard to
his habits, and whether the men-servants slept on the
premises; and in addition to these facts, it appeared that
after he was in gaol he made a statement to one of his
fellow-prisoners which was'tantamount to an admission
.nfat'r nor'ft

had waited a few days.
Mr. CRARNOCK addressed the jury on the part of the
prisoner, and endeavoured with considerable ingenuity to
show that there was no reality, no actual corroboration
of the accomplice's testimony, and upon that ground he
called upon them to acquit the prisoner.
Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE summed up ; and the jury,
after a very short deliberation, returned a verdict of
Guilty.
The Learned SERGEANT, after making some appro-
priate remarks upon the very aggravated and alarming
character of the offence of which the prisoner had been
convicted, ordered judgment of death to be recorded,
with an intimation that the prisoner would be transported
for life.

July 26.
The Chief Baron returned to the circuit this morning,
and took his seat in the Nisi Prius Court. Mr. Baron
Alderson proceeded to town on Wednesday evening to
attend at Chambers, and Mr. Sergeant Wallinger pre-
sided in the Crown Court. In the course of the day a
third Court was formed before Mr. Sergeant Gaselee.
(Before the CHIEF BARON and a Common Jury.)
STORRER V. HARMAN.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1721.,
the defendant being sued as the acceptor.
A great number of special pleas were put upon the re-
cord, but the material defence relied upon was that the
bill had been obtained by fraud, and that the plaintiff
was aware of the fact, and that he had given no consi-
deration for the bill.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Hurlstone were for the
defendant; Sergeant Gaselee and Mr. Lush appeared for
the plaintiff.
The ease on the part of the plaintiff consisted in
merely the production of the bill, and proof that the ac-
ceptance was the handwriting of the defendant.
Mr. CHAMBERS, on the part of the defendant, said
that the defence he was instructed to offer was, that he
had been swindled out of this bill, under a pretence that
it should he discounted for him ; but instead of that
being done, he had, in point of fact, never received a
single farthing, and when the jury had heard the evidence
he should adduce, he believed they would not entertain
any doubt that the plaintiff, who now sued as the holder
of the bill, was perfectly cognizant of the fraud that had
been practised, and on that ground he was not entitled to
recover. _

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, July 26.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
William noddy, 20, was indicted for cutting and
wounding Samuel Armishaw, at Stone, on the 22d May.
The prosecutor, a brewer's draytnan, went to a public-
house with some barrels, and after unloading them, he
went into a room in which were the prisoner and two
other men. He called for a pint of ale, and one of the
men, named Carter, commenced ill-using him, backed by
the other two, when prosecutor knocked Carter down.
The three men went out, and proseCutor followed with
his waggon on the Stone road about twenty minutes af-
terwarda. After going some distance, he found Hoddy,
Carter, and Beresford in the road. Carter went up, and
tried to pull him out of the waggon. Armishaw struck him
with the whip, and Beresford then seized the near leader's
head, on which the
was
jumped out of the waggon,
when Hoddy, who standing on the footpath, with a
knife in his hand, came up, and stuck the knife into his
side by the ninth rib, inflicting a wound about one inch
in breadth and two-and-a-halt in depth.
The prisoner's defence was, that he used the knife to
protect himself from the whip of the prosecutor; but the
wituessdenied that he was struck at all.
transported for ten years.