The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, March 23.
There, were fourteen Crown cases remainint for trial
this morning, though this is the commission day for
Shr.wsbury. Some of these being indictments fur per-
jury, in which the accused were out on bail, was or-
dored to stand over till the next as.izes. Their Lord-
ships remair.cd ail day to try the other cases. It was
said that Mr. Ser;.-,e,,tot ralfourd or Mr. S,rgeaht: Adan
will open the comm,ssion at Shre‘,si,,ify, and that busi-
ness will not commence there till Tnur,d4y, it being in-
tended to observe to-morrow with all the strictness suit
able to a day set apart for national humiliation.
CROWN counz—(Beforo Mr. Justice MAri.E.)
Pit be Winkle was indicted for concealing the birth
of her illegitimate male child on the 9th of November
last.

Mr. Vaughan conducted the prosecution; the prisoner
was undefended.
It appeared that the prisoner was in the service of a
Mrs. Davis, and that on the day in question Mrs. Davis,
t.uspecting that she had been delivered of a child, asked
her whether the fact was so? The prisoner denied it.
Her mistress thereupon insisted upon going up stairs to
her room and examining her box, and therein found a
new-born child, quite d, ad. A surgeon, who made a
post morteni examination, said that the child had never
breathed. The prisoner on being now called on for her
defence, merely charged her mistress with as,isting in
the concealment. She wss found Guilty, and his Lore-
ship, in passing sentence, said the grtatest aggrava-
tion of her offence was her telling such a wanton lie of
her mistress, but as she had been already imprisoned so
long, he would direct her to be imprisoned only for ten
days more.

Benjamin Cooper was indicted for the manslaughter
of Francis Taylor, on the 23d of February last.
Mr. Vaughan appeared for the prosecution; Mr.
Meteyard defended the prisoner.
From the evidence adduced, it app; tred that at four
o'clock in the morning of the 23d of February the de-
ceased was employed, with a man of the name of Thomas,
in sinking a coal-pit at Willerhall, and that the primmer
was employed as banksman at that time at the mouth of
the pit. It is the duty of the banksman, upon the skip
or " bowk" being drawn up; containing materials sent
up by the men in the shaft, to cover the mouth of the
pit with a waggon, and secure the waggon with a pin, to
prevent the waggon from slipping, and so leave a portion
of the mouth uncovered before the " bowk" is emptied
of its contents. On the morning in questi,n a " bowk"
full of bricks had been sent up by the sinkers, and, on
its reaching•the top of the pit, the pisoner drew the
waggon across the mouth of the pit, but omitted to secure
it with the pin. In consequence of this omission the
waggon slipped and left part of the mouth uncovered,
through which some of the bricks from the " bowk,"
striking against a part of the tackle, were precipitated,
and falling upon the deceased in the shaft, caused his
death.
The Learned JUDGES summed up, and told the jury
that if they thought that from want of due and reason-
able care on the part of, the prisoner the deceased came
by his death, he was guilty of manslaughtt r.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and, after a
suitable admonition, his LORDsUIP sentenced him to be
imprisoned two months, with hard labour.
The business in this court was not over till half-past
six o'clock.

(Before Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE.)
Edward Nightingale was indicted for forgery under
the following circumstances :
The prisoner was a parish constable at Wednesbury,
and came with a number of witnesses from that neigh-
bourhood to the last assizes'in this town, to prosecute a
man of the name of Joseph Bate for manslaughter.
After the trial he got an order in the usual form from
the deputy-clerk of assize on the county treasurer for
the payment of the witnesses' expenses. The order
directed the payment of 17s. 6d. each to (amongst others)
two persons named Daniel Harper and Samuel- Eggin-
ton. It is the usage for the treasurer to pay the order
on having it presented to him with the name of the
payees signed on the. back of it, with the sum due to
them opposite their names, as" Daniel Harper, 17s. 6d.;
Samuel Egginton, 17s. 6d." The prisoner forged the
above names and sums on the back of the order, pre-
sented it, and got the money, and gave the parties only
14s. each, telling them that that was all that they
were allowed. On their discovering the real circum-
stances, a prosecution was instituted against him, and
he was now put to the bar to answer—first, to an indict-
ment charging him with having forged Daniel Harper's
name, with intent to defraud that person.
Mr. Kettle prosecuted, and Mr. Huddleston defended
the prisoner.
It was proved that it was the custom in the office of
the county treasurer to pay the money to the person
bringing the order, on seeing the names of the parties
written opposite the sums directed to be paid to them.
If the constable did not bring the order with the names
on, it would not be paid. Harper proved that he had
not written his name on the order, or authorised any one
to do so. The prisoner gave him only 14s. altogether,
but did not say anything as to how much was due to
him. After paying that sum he desired the prosecutor
to meet him at the railway station in order to get a
ticket home, but did not say who was to pay fur it. The
charge for it would be 2s.
Mr. HUDDLEsToN objected that the document in ques•
tion was not a receipt or acquittance as described in the
indictment, but an order for the payment of money;
that even if it were in fact on the evidence a receipt or
acquittance, yet as it did not on the face of it purport to
be either a receipt or acquittance, the indictment was
bad for not stating how it was a receipt.
Mr. KETTLE, having proceeded to answer the objection,
was stopped t'y
His LORDSHIP, who said he had no doubt on the
question, but, if necessary, would reserve it for the con-
sideretion of the judges.
Mr. HUDDLESTON having addressed the jury, con-
tending that there was no proof of any fraudulent
intention on the part of the prisoner, as he meant to
apply the remaining 3s. 63. towards the expense of
taking the prosecutor home,
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the verdict was Not
Guilty.
The prisoner wet again tried on a similar indictment,
charging him with an intent to defraud Samuel
Egginton.
The evidence was the same as in the last case, except
that Egginton said the prisoner told him the 14s. was
all that was coming to him; thAt the prosecutor paid
his own fare from Bescot to Stafford; that the witnesses
walked from home to Bescot station on coming to the
assizes, and that the prisoner did not say a word as to
taking the witnesses back home in a cart from Bescot
station.
The prisoner was again Acquitted.
George Cooke, Thomas Wright, and Elijah Moore,
were indicted for cutting and wounding Thomas Hughes,
a police-constable, at Stoke-upon-Trent, on the 25th of
November last.
Mr. Huddleston con]ucted the prosecution; M.
Meteyard appeared for Cooke; and Mr. Woolrych fee
the other two prisone
It appeared that on Sunday, the 25th of November
last, at 12 o'clock at night, the prosecutor directed a man
named Rhodes, whom he called a suspicious character, to
go home, and on his refusing to do so collared him, and
was thereupon assailed by seven or eight men, and re-
ceived from the hand of one, whom he swore was Cooke,
a wound on the cheek, from which he bled so profusely
that his life was endangered, and the side of his face pa-
ralysed. He tavore that Wright was one of the party,
and struck him with a stick, and that another of them
resembled Moore. Wright was seen a mile and a half
off, at Fenton, half an hour after the outrage. When
the prisoner Cooke was taken into custody there were
spots of blood on his jacket and trousers; and conversa-
tions were deposed to by two policemen, which were
overheard from the passsages between the cells where the
prisoners were confined, and tended to show that the
prisoners were together on the eight in question when
the attack on the prosecutor was made, and were con-
cerned in it. Certain statements were also proposed to
be given in evidence, which had been elicited by ques-
tions put to the prisoners separately when in custody by
the superintendent of the police, but the Learned Judge
expressing disapprobation of such a mode of obtaining
evidence, the counsel for the prosecution declined to give
them in evidence. It was elicited on cross-examination
that two policemen had been put into the same cells
with the prisoners, disguised—one in a smock-frock, the
other also in some ordinary dress—for the purpose of
entering into conversation with the prisoners; that they
pretended to have been committed, one for felony, and
the other for disobedience to a bastardy order. Hughes
swore he did not strike Rhodes when he was wounded.
Mr. METEYARD addressed the jury, contending that
the prosecutor was mistaken as to the identity of Cooke.
Mr. WOoLRYCH, for Wright and Moore, urged—first,
that the wound was the act of one person, in which none
of the others wet e implicated; and, secondly, that there
was no evidence to connect Wright and Moore with the
transaction.

Several witnesses were called to prove that the police.
man struck Rhodes on the night in question. That
p. rson had been found soon after the affray,near the
spot, covered with blood.
A number of witnesses gave all the prisoners good
characters.
Mr. HUDDLESTON replied.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and all three prisoners
were convicted, and transported for ten years.
His LORDSHIP sat till nearly five o'clock.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Leicester, March 23.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Air. Justice I'ATTE-
ION and a Special Jury.)
TYLER AND WIPE V. DUDLEY AND ANOTHER.

This action was in trespass.
Mr. liumfrey and Mr. Macaulay for the plaintiffs;
Mr. Wbitehurst and Mr. Barnaby for the defendants.
The plaintiffs in this action are in an humble station
in life, living at Wineswold, in this county, a village
about five miles from Loughborough. The defendants,
the Rev. J. Dudley and Mr. Danvers, are two of the
Loughborough bench of magistrates. The wife of the
male plaintiff had quarrelled with a neighbour, named
Mary Crooks. For this she was brought upon a war-
rant be forethe two magistrates in question, who, having
nojurisdiction, dismissed the complaint, but mulcted
her in 11. 18s. costs, leaving her the alternative of going
to prison, if she did not pay, and she was sentenced to
fourteen days' imprisonment and hard labour. The
poor woman went to prison, but it being thought strange
that a party of irreproachable character should be
to prison for costs in a case wherein the magistrates
had no jurisdiction, inquiry was set on foot, and the
commitment being bad on the face of it, a memo-
rial was sent to the then Secretary of State for the
Home Department (Sir James Graham), who ins,antly
ordered her discharge, with an admonition to the ma-
gistrates to be careful in such eases for the future.
The husband had brought an action for the loss of his
wife's services, &c., during the time of her imprison-
ment, which lasted for eight days, but 5/ being paid
into court, he accepted that. The present action was
brought jointly in the name of himself and wife, and