The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-23 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron PLATT and Mr. Justice.
WILLIAMS.)
~Richard Haynes, 28, labourer, was indicted for
feloniously wounding Jane M'Casland with intent to
do her some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. MELLOR conducted the prosecution.
The prosecutrix, a young girl, who was still
suffering severely from the brutal attack made
upou her by the prisoner, said that on the evening
of the 25th of July she was sent by her mother to
fetch a jug of water, and as she was passing along
Lant- street, Southwark, she saw the prisoner leading
along a drunken woman. She turned round to look
at them, and the prisoner suddenly dropped the woman
and, rushing towards her, kicked her at the bottom of
the belly with all his force, and she fell to the ground
insensible.

The prisoner said that it was his mother who was
drunk, and he wished to know whether the prose-
cutrix did not call out and say that he had kicked his
mother ?

The prosecutrix denied having made use of such an
expression, and declared that she did not say a word
to the prisoner before he kicked her.
Charles Somerville, a labouring man, said he saw
the prisoner leading along his mother, and he was fol-
lowed by a crowd of children, some of whom were
hooting, but the prosecutrix did not take any part in
it. The prisoner suddenly turned round, and, ad-
dressing the prosecutrix, said, " If you don't get out
of the way I'll kick your guts out,' and he instantly
rushed at her and kicked her. [The boot worn by
the prisoner at the time was produced. It was a very
heavy one, and tipped at the toe with iron.]
Mr. Heath, the surgeon who was called in, de-
scribed the injury inflicted by the prisoner as being of
a most serious character, and said that at one time he
considered the life of the prosecutrix in danger. She
was still suffering, and would probably feel the effect
of the injury for the rest of her life.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, in summing up the case,
told the jury that the material question for them to
consider was the intent of the prisoner. It was not
because serious injury was the result of the prisoner's
act that they were therefore to infer his intention
was to do that injury, and they were to judge, from
all the circumstances, whether at the time he kicked
the prosecutrix he intended to do her serious bodily
harm, as was imputed to him by the indictment, or
whether he was merely guilty of a common assault.
The jury, after a short deliberation, found the pri•
soner Guilty of a common assault.
A police-constable informed the Court that a short
time before this transaction the prisoner had been
charged with committing a violent assault upon four
boys, and he was under recognizances when he com-
mitted the assault upon the prosecutrix.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, in passing sentence, told
the prisoner that the act of kicking a girl of tender
years, or indeed any woman, was most brutal and dis
graceful, and it was fortunate that the jury had ac-
quitted him of the more serious intention, and had
only found him guilty of a common assault. He
should take that fact into consideration, and also the
circumstance that at the time of the occurrence he
was placed in a peculiar position with :a drunken
mother, and that he had no doubt been aggravated by
the crowd of children who were about him, and com-
mitted the assault under the impression that the pro-
secutrix was one of those who had annoyed him.
The Court, however, felt bound to punish him with
some severity, and the sentence was that he be im-
prisoned and kept to hard labour for six calendar
months.
William Smith, aged 31, was arraigned upon three
separate indictments for uttering forged orders for the
delivery of goods.
In the first case it appeared that the forged order,
which the prisoner had given to a boy, was returned
to him by that boy on his failing to obtain the pro-
perty, and, as no notice had been given to thervionee
rtddutphierrterni
isetnohdanni
nreoddar.
to produce it, secondary evidence could not be given
of its contents. In the second cneasehgraeefd;oftorhrargeeneec:jdeu,iry thought
there was not sufficient evidence of the forged order
beingcwasheo.
prove
ttihhnteehrt
abhetoewyfpaarswei
tsvh.oeonr prisoner's
hlrsieethst
elajeonutddre
oywdu, handwriting
in attendance to
cveenrAdtiliryc.tßfroaofrmoNntohpteGL
AupTirTlitsytoonilenar
lhuacvkey,
s,
eanntde
oi if
sentenced
ae
himhad been
to
transportation. convicted
so en
he re hs
he o unl hadd
obe advisede
certainly n very
7parsciasnot
him
jothon b
Chappell
hvaepr very
ell carefulß en Bennett,
t,f u3t3u, r ew.
each
the N
felo-
niously uttering a forged acceptanClaphamceMr.intodicatehdilflorofex
change for 421. 45., with intent to defraud Henry
prosecuted, and Mr. Ballantine appeared
m intrade for the defence.
The charge was clearly brought home to the
opri-
soner, but the circumstances connected with the
offence were of a painful character. It appeared that
the prisoner on his coming of age received 4,0001.,
and went into business as a tallow-chandler, and by
losses
andsaoetrhifieroecircumstances
atshreedwuhooed to
whole of
the hey was
great distress, and with difficulty supported him-
self and his family. He had always borne an irre-
proachable character, and he appeared to have com-
mitted the offence while under great pecuniary diffi-
culty. He had a wife and three children now depen-
dent upon him.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recom-
mended him faro )gly to the merciful consideration of
the Court.
Mr. PARRY said he was instructed by the prose-
cutor to join in the recommendation, as he believed
that the prisoner had been induced to commit the act
by the prese4re of great poverty.