The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-29 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGISNCE.
HOME CIRCUIT, Maiiistou.3, July 29.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. -Sergeant TADDY.)
Thomas Pilbeam, aged 32, by trade a gunmaker, was
indicted for cutting the throat of Esther Pilbeam, his
wife, with intent to murder. her.
Bartlett Allen Chambers stated th at he was a cabinet-
maker, and resided at Faversham. .Knew the prisoner,
who resided very near him. On the ,Ist instant the pri-
soner called upon him respecting s 3me furniture which
he had bought of him some time provious. Witness ac-
companied him to the house, when he saw the prosecu-
trix. The prisoner said, " Now, father, here is Mr.
Chambers; you may do what you like." She appeared
to be in a bad temper. The prisoner added, " Why don't
you alter your course, and live comfortably with me ?"
She replied, that he might do what he liked, for she
would not live with him.

Esther Pilbeam, a young female of genteel appearance,
and who gave her evidence with reluctance, stated that
she was the wife of the prisoner ; recollected Mr. Cham-
bers accompanying the prisoner home on the Ist inst.
She had been been very unwell for some time, and had
just laid down on the bed. When Chambers went
away her husband went with him, but returned in about
twenty minutes, and went upstair to her. (The witness
here said she did not wish to answer any more ques-

tions ; but was told by the Judge that she must pro-
ceed, and tell the truth.) She then got off the bed
and went down stairs into the back room, where
she sat down ; her husband followed her, but
she did not recollect exactly what then took
place ; he however appeared to be in a very bad humour.
Whilst she was sitting down her husband stood near
her. At that time she did not observe any thing in his
hands. She was talking to him about his drinking, and
he said something about her not being angry. He then
put his arm round her neck, and afterwards threw him-
self upon the floor. Was not aware that she had re-
ceived any injury till she was informed of it by a little
girl who had just entered the room. Her (witness's)
first impression at the time was, that he intended to
strangle her. When her attention was called by the little
girl, she found that her throat had been cut. Was quite
sure that she received the wound at the time her hus-
band put his arm round her neck.
George Crissfield, a butcher, stated that he resided
immediately opposite the house of the prisoner ; on the
day in question he heard a loud scream, and immediately
ran across the road and went into the house, where he
found the prosecutrix in one of the rooms holding a
handkerchief to her throat ; she said, "My husband has
cut my throat." He examined her throat and found a
wound which extended about four inches, and deeper on
one side than the other. She then fainted, and he put
her upon a chair, and sent for medical assistance. As
soon as a surgeon arrived he (witness) went to look after
the prisoner, and found him lying on the ground in the
back kitchen, with a clasp knife lying by his side open.
Witness spoke to him, when he replied, " I have cut my
wife's throat, and have been trying to cut my own, and
this is the knife I did it with." (The knife was here pro-
duced—it was a penknife with a short blade.) He then
examined the prisoner's throat, and found two trifling
scratches. A constable afterwards came and took the
prisoner into custody.
By the Learned JUDGE—The wounds in the prisoner's
throat appeared to bleed very slightly.
Mr. Hollis, J. assistant to Mr. Giraud, surgeon, of

Faversham, was sent for on the day in question to attend
the prosecutrix ; he found her with a wound in her
throat which extended from one side to the other ; on
the right side it was about a quarter of an inch in depth,

but on the left it was very slight. He dressed the wound

and continued to attend the rosecutrix for about a fort-
night. He afterwards saw the prisoner, when he stated
that he was sorry he had not killed her and himself as
well ; he appeared very much excited.
Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury on behalf of the
prisoner, and called several witnesses, who spoke favour-
ably of the prisoner's general conduct.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY, in summing up, told the Jury,
that under the circumstances he thought they would not
be justified in finding the prisoner guilty of an intent to
murder. It was for them to say whether he intended to
maim or do his wife any grievous bodily harm.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
of " Guilty of intent to do grievous bodily harm ;" but
accompanied by a strong recommendation to mercy on
account of his previous good character.

The prosecu.trix also recommended him to mercy.
Mr. Sergeant TAnDY told the prisoner that he had
been found guilty of a very serious offence, and the
punishment must be commensurate. The sentence was,
that he be transported for the term of 15 years.

OXFORD ClRCUlT—Shrewsbury, July 27.

(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN and a Special'Jury.)

EVANS V. PRATT.

In this case Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Corbett
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Ludlow
(with whom was Mr. F. V. Lee), represented the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff and the defendant are both of them gen-
tlemen of fortune, resident near Wolverhampton, and
are both members of the Allbrighton hunt, and fond of
the pleasures of the turf, as well as of the chase. It
appeared that in the early part of the present year some
conversation took place between them with reference to
the comparative merits of two mares, one of which,
named Matilda, the defendant had previously sold to the
plaintiff for 25i., and the other, a brown mare, to a Mr.
Riley for 1001. The result of the conversation, of which
the particulars did not transpire, and which would pro-
vably not have been very edifying if they could have
been given in evidence, was an agreement between the
parties to run Matilda and the brown mare four miles
across a country, play or pay, each carrying 13 stone,
and Mr. Thomas Holyoake, the master of the Allbrighton
hounds, whose decision was to be final, was named as
umpire. If the brown mare won, the plaintiff was to
pay 25/., the price of Matilda, while it was agreed that
the defendant should pay 1001., the price of the brown
mare, if Matilda should be declared the winner, and
the match was to come off on the Ist of March.
Accordingly, on that day, Mr. Holyoake having ac-
cepted the office of umpire, and measured,out the ground,
the defendant appeared at the starting-post with
the brown mare, while Mr. Powell, a celebrated rider of
steeple chases, acted as jockey to Matilda. It was ex-
pressly directed by Mr. Holyoake, in accordance with
the universal laws of steeple-chasing, that neither of the
mares shouldgo through a gate, and that if either did so,
she would forfeit the race. At the winning-post the
defendant's mare came in first, but Powell, who rode
Matilda, immediately made a complaint to the umpire
that the defendant had ridden through a gate and
claimed the race, which Mr. Holyoake, after examining
the ground near the gate in the presence of the two
jockeys, decided had been won by Matilda. The defendant,
however, refused to abide by this decision, and the pre-
sent action was commenced. The defence set up was
threefold—first, a denial of the wager, which was proved by
the production of the agreement between the parties ;
secondly, that the race was won by the brown mare,
which the defendant's counsel contended was the fact, as
Mr. Holyoake had no right to import into the agreement
any stipulations about not riding through gates ; and
thirdly, that the race was illegal, being a steeple-chase,
and run over hedges and ditches, fields, closes, and
brooks, and not a regular horse-race run upon the turf,
and therefore not within the protection of the statutes
which regulate horse racing. On this third question
Mr. Justice Coltman expressed his opinion that the
race was legal, but reserved leave for the defendant to
move to have the verdict on that issue set aside, and en-
tered for him, if the Court should think otherwise.

The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the
plaintiff, with 1001. damages, and his Lordship certified
for a Special Jury.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—Durham, July 27.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
CRAWFORD V. WILSON AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
damages for an injury received by him while going as a
passenger from Stockton to Sunderland in a railway
carriage.
Mr. Knowles, assisted by Mr. Udall, conducted the
ease of the plaintiff, and Mr. Dundas, with whom was
Mr. Watson, that of the defendants.
It appeared from the statement of the Learned Coun-
sel for the plaintiff that the defendants are directors and
shareholders of the Durham and Sunderland Railway,
which commences at a short distance from Durham, and
terminates at a place called Haswell-bridge, where it is
connected with other railways, one of which communi-
cates with Stockton. The Durham and Sunderland Rail-
way Company wore incorporated by act of Parliament, but
they were not now sued in their corporate capacity, the
place where the accident occurred not being a part of
their line nor a branch or siding of it, but an extension
of the line, belonging, in fact, to the Haswell Colliery
Company, over which the defendants carried passengers
for hire. In this respect they were, therefore, merely
carriers at common law, liable to all the incidents of
such an undertaking, one of which was that they under-
took to carry the party who paid for his transit safely
and without injury during the whole of the journey ;
but if from their neglect or default any injury did
occur to such passenger they were bound to make
such compensation in damages as a Jury in their
judgment, under all the circumstances, thought right.
It was under these circumstances, and not in
their corporate capacity, that they were sued.
They seemed determined, however, to raise the question
whether they could be so sued pr not, for they had put
every species of plea upon the record which was calcu-
lated not only to raise that question, but to throw every
obstacle possible in the way of the plaintiff. The plain-
tiff is a gentleman of fortune, residing at Silton-hall.
He is the son of the late Member of Parliament for
the City of London. He was formerly in the army,
and was greatly distinguished both for his mental
and bodily powers. On the 3d of November last he
took a place by the railway, to be conveyed from
Stockton to Sunderland. The passengers were con-
veyed in an omnibus from Stockton to a place called
the Foundry, where they got into carriages on the Has-
well Railway, and proceeded to Haswell-bridge, the
terminus of that end of the Durham and Sunderland
Railway. The Haswell Railway is at a much greater
elevation than the other ; so much so, that the car-
riages from Stockton arrive on the top of the bridge,
beneath which the Durham and Sunderland Railway
runs. To effect the junction the carriages are run
down an inclined plane by the force of their own gra-
vity in a north-west direction till they reach a point
where a branch from the Haswell-road runs down an
incline in a south-east direction into the Dur-
ham and Sunderland road. When the inclin
into each other, it is necessary to fr.—
direct the wheels into f)--
as mirrh« L

,s run
-.a a switch, so as to
one or the other of these lines

oe desired, the proper position of the switch
being such as would direct the coal-waggon from the
Haswell branch into the Durham and Sunderland
road. The carriage in which the plaintiff came was
run down the first incline, and past the switch, where
they waited for the train to come up on its way
from Durham to Sunderland to take them onward.
They had been standing there about three quarters