The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-21 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LiNcar,m, JuLr 10.
CROWN COURT.—Alexandcr Milligan, aged 36, was
charged, on the Coroner's Inquisition, with having, in the
parish of Fordyke, killed and slain Owen, alias John,
ltowlat.

John Lynn sworn and examined—ls a bricklayer, living
at Boston. Was out at work on the 17th of May last, and
was returning towards his home on the evening of the same
day with his apprentice boy, James Allen. On coming to
a place known as the North Forty Foot Drain Bank, wit-
ness saw prisoner lying on the bank, apparently asleep.
On passing him, and looking back, witness saw that Milli-
gan had risen up, and was running at the deceased, who
retreated towards witness, the prisoner following him with
a sword-stick blade in his hand, which be pointed at the
deceased, who fell in his (witness's) arms. He said, " Yon
tea man has stabbed me." Prisoner was a hawker of tea,
and in the habit of vending in the fen country. Rowlat
was a fiddler, in the practice of attending at wakes and
fairs. Witness had Rowlat stripped, and found he had
been wounded betwee❑ the sixth and seventh ribs. On being
taken into a house, Rowlat asked to be allowed to sit down,
saying he was very bad. He was then put on board an
empty lighter, to be taken where medical aid might be ob-
tained ; but he shortly after died. The prisoner in the
meantime had run away.
The Learned JuDGE having summed up, the Jury imme-
diately returned a verdict of Guilty.—Sentence deferred.

HOME CIRCUIT, MAIDSTONE, JULY 20.
CIVIL SIDE.—DOMBRAIN V. WOOD.
This was an action for libel. The defendant pleaded a
justification.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE stated the case. The plaintiff,
Mr. James Dombrain, was Comptroller-General of the
Preventive Water Guard in Ireland, and had brought the
present action for two libels which appeared in the Kent
herald, of which the defendant, Eliza Wood, was the part
owner. The plaintiff was appointed in the year 1816
Deputy Comptroller-General of the Preventive Water
Guard of England, under Captain John Martin Hanchett,
the Comptroller, who was afterwards dismissed from his
office, and the plaintiff subsequently was appointed to the
situation, which he now filled. Captain Hanchett, very
indignant at being dismissed, presented a petition to the
House of Commons, which, however, had not the effect of
reinstating him. and now, after a lapse of 17 years, he had
given fresh vent to his irritation by the publication of the
libels complained of in the journal of the defendants.
The part proprietorship of the Kent Herald being in the
defendant was proved, and the alleged libels were read.
Mr. TIIESSIGLR then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendants.

His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury, after having
retired for some time, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 51.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARY.CEBONE.
Yesterday Mr. George Haines attended at this office, on
the part of himself, his son, and Mr. Thomas Pickard, the
proprietors of a cotton manufactory at No. 13, in the
Hampstead-road, to answer an information laid against the
firm by Mr. Samuel Seville Kent, superintendent of mills
and factories, and who resides at Salcombe Regis, near
Sidmouth, Devon.

The case, in consequence of its being the first which,
under the Act 3d and 4th of William IV., cap. 103, has
been preferred before the Magistrates, excited a consider-
able degree of interest, and the office was crowded for some
time previous to the arrival of Mr. Hosxitr•s, at one o'clock.
There were three counts in the information, which were
as follow :--The first was for the offence of having worked
ix child, named Henry Offer, under thirteen years of age,
more than forty-eight hours in one week ; the second count
set forth that the defendants had worked the said boy
without having a certificate from a schoolmaster to the
effect that the boy in question had for two hours at least in
each of the six days in the week preceding attended at his
school ; and the third count was for not keeping a proper
register or time book, containing a minute of the hours at
which the said Henry Offer began and ended work, during
the time he had been employed at the mill or factory on the
defendants' premises.

The Bth clause in the Act, and which is applicable to the
first-named offence, ran thus :—" And be it further enacted,
that from and after the expiration of six months after the
passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful fnr any person
whatsoever to employ, keep, or allow to remain, in any fac-
tory or mill as aforesaid for a longer time than nine hours
in any one day, except as herein provided, any child who
shall not have completed his or 11;:r twelfth year of age, or
after the expiration of thirty months from the passing of
this Act any child who shall not have completed his or
her thirteenth year of age, provided nevertheless that in
mills for the manufacturing of silk, children under the age
of thirteen years shall be allowed to work ten hours in any
one day."

Robert John Saunders, Esq., one of the inspectors of
factories duly appointed under the provisions of the Act,
sat by virtue of his office on the bench, and a gentleman
from the firm of Moseley and Overbury, 13, Bedford-street,
Covent-garden, attended on the part of the Factory Com-
missioners.

Mr. RAWLINSON (to Mr. Haines)—You appear, I sup-
pose, for the whole of the firm? Mr. Haines—l do.
Mr. RAWLINSON—Do you plead guilty or not to this
information which has been laid against you ? Mr. Haines—
I plead guilty, Sir ; but what I have offended in accord-
ing to the Act was quite unintentional, and entirely an
oversight.

Mr: RAWLINSON (to Air. Saunders)—Here are parties
who say that they are guilty, but that they have inadvert-
ently offended. Did you wish to press for penalties? Mr.
Saunders--I have no wish whatever to be severe, but—
Mr. RAWLINSON—For each offence the parties are liable
to a penalty, not exceeding 201. Suppose,
under the cir-
cumstances, we inflict a penalty of ss. in each case ? Mr.
Saunders—lf Mr. Haines wishes to go below a 20s. fine
I am desirous of going on ; but, in justice to the firm, I
must say that, having visited the factory, I think it is,
generally speaking, well conducted.
Mr. S. S. Kent was then examined ; when the defend-
ants were fined 20s. for the first-named offence, and upon
each of the other counts 55., together with all costs.
The money was paid, and the parties then left the office.