The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-26 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—Stafford, March 23.
There were fourteen Crown cases remaining for trial
this morning, though this is the commission day for
Shrewsbury. Some of these being indictments for per-
jury, in which the accused were out on bail, were or-
dered to stand over till the next assizes. Their Lord-
ships remained all day to try the -other cases. It was
said that Mr. Sergeant Talfourd or Mr. Sergeant Allan
will open the commission at Shrewsbury, and that busi-
ness will not commence there till Thursday, it being in-
tended to observe to-morrow with all the strictness suit
able to a day set apart for natiunal humiliation.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice MAULE.)
Phoebe Winkle was indicted fur 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,
suspecting 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 dead. A surgeon, who made a
post mortem examination, said. that the child had never
breathed. The prisoner on being now called on fur her
defence, merely charged her mistress with as,iring in
the concealment. She was found Guilty, and his Lord-
ship, in passing sentence, said the greatest aggrava-
tion of her offence was her telling such a wanton lie of
her mistress, but as sbe had been already imprisoned so
lung, 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 appeared 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 prisoner
wks 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 becore the " bowie' is emptied
of its contents. On the morning in question a " howk"
full of bricks had bten sent up by the sinkers, and, on
its reaching the top of the pit, the prisoner 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 JUDGE 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 manslaught( r.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and, after a
suitable admonition, his LORDAIIP 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 Aightiagak was indicted for forgery under
the folio wing circumstances :
The prisoner was a parish constable at Wednesbury,
and catue 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. 6c1.;
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
ho 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 dig 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 for 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 fur not stating how it was a receipt.
Mr. KETTLE, having proceeded to answer the objection,
was stopped by
His LORDSHIP, who said he had no doubt on the
question, but, if necessary, would reserve it for the con-
sideration of the judges.
Mr. HUDDLESTON having addressee 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. 6d. towards the expense of
taking the prosecutor home,
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the verdict was Not
Guilty.
The prisoner was 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 Thom3a flu4nes,
a police-constable, at Stoke-upon-Trent, on the 25th of
November list.

Mr. Huddleston conducted the prosecution; Mr.
Meteyard appeared for Cooke; and Mr. Woolrjch fir
the other two prisoners.
It appeared that ou 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 4o 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, aid the side of his face pa-
ralysed. He swore 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 passsa.ges between the cells where the
prisoners were confined, and tended to show that the
prisoners were together on the night 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 bee"' elicited by ques-
tions put to the prisoners separately when in cihit,,dy by
the superintendent of the police, but the Learned Judge
expressing disapprobation of such a mode of ob'aiuing
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 fel,,ny, 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. WOOLRYCLI, for Wright and Moore, urged—first,
that the wound was the act of one person, in which none
of the others were 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
person 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 Mr. Justice I'ATTE-
ION and a Special Jury.)
TYLER AND WIFE v. DUDLEY AND ANOTHER.
This action was in trespass.
Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Macaulay for the plaintiffs;
Mr. Whitehurst
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 before the two magistrates in question, who, having
no jurisdiction, dismissed the c.implaiiit, but mulcted
her in IL 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 beine, thought strange
that a party of irreproachable character should be sent
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 tor the
Home Department (Sir James Graham), yt ho instantly
ordered her discharge, with an admonition to the ma-
gistrates to be careful in such cases for the future.
The husband had brought an t_ition for the loss of his
wife's services, &c., during the time of her imprisoi.i-
merit, which laood for eight days. bet 5/, being plut
into court, he accepted that. The present action was
brought jointly in the name of himself and wife, and •