The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-24 00:00:00

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 22

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CRISWELL.)
George Aiziewood, Joseph Hague, Richard Bradshaw, and
Hannah, his wife, were jointly indicted for a misdemeanour,
in having conspired together, by unlawful means, and to
defeat the objects of justice, to cause witnesses to abscond.
The conspiracy charged referred to the charge of rape
which was tried yesterday, when three young men were sen-
tenced to be transported for having violated the person of
Maria Kaufmann, a German musician, who had been at-
tacked by those men while travelling with her sister.
The prisoners, in the present indictment, were proved to
have tampered with the two girls, and to induce them by
offers of money to pay their expenses home, and by holding
out terror to them, to set off towards their own country in
Germany. They were on the point of departure when the
conspiracy and the conduct of the prisoners upon it became
known. The prisoners were relatives of the men tried yes-
terday.
All convicted.—Sentence deferred.
IN THE MAGISTRATES' ROOM.
(Before Mr. WaTsor, Q.C.)
CHARGE OF RIOT AND FORCIBLZ ENTRY. —John George
Hounsfield (a clergyman of the Church of England), John
Hall, George Hall, Charles Hall, and William Balmford, were
jointly indicted for having committed a riot, and forcibly
entered the house of George Calvert Holland, M.D., in the
parish of Ecclesfield.
Mr. Overend was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr.
Ingham for the defence.
Dr. Holland, who lives at about three miles from Sheffield,
was examined, and said that he had taken his present house
of a Mr. Coupland, from the 6th of October last, and was
yearly tenant of the same. On the 16th of March last the
defendant, Mr. Hounsfield, came to that house, bringing
with him his attorney. He asked to see the premises, which
the witness permitted. He then informed Dr. Holland that he
(Mr. Hounsfield) intended to take possession of the house in
three weeks from that time, and therefore that witness
had better remove his family and household furniture.
The defendant, or his aunt, had been possessed of
the same house formerly. Witness told him that he
had no concern but with Mr. Coupland, his land-
lord, and that he should resist any attempt of the
kind. The next day, Dr. Holland, being in Sheffield,
met 'Mr. Hounsfield again, when the latter said that he
should enter the house on the Tuesday following. On the
18th a letter came from him, intimating that, knowing that
Mrs. Holland was then unwell, he desired to avoid doing any-
thing that might be disagreeable to her, and therefore he
begged that Dr. Holland might remove. On the Monday
following the defendant came to the house again, and spoke
to the doctor through the front door. The latter would not
open the door for him, but partly opened the back door, to
which there was a chain which would prevent it from being
pushed open. This was at nine in the morning. The de-
fendant then, addressing Dr. Holland through the back door,
demanded admission. The wife of the defendant, and a Mr.
Lawson, his attorney, came with him. Mr. Hounsfield then
went away for a short distance, and the witness, who had
taken the precaution to have three policemen in the house,
looked through a window, and could thence see what he did. ,
Saw him pull off a black coat, and put on a dressing-gown.
which he buttoned up round his throat. Immediately
afterwards he came marching towards the house, at the
head of about fifty persons, mostly quarrymen and grinders,
the other four defendants being of the party. They
were, many of them, armed with sticks or bludgeons, and
one of them bore a crowbar. There was a band of musicians
along with the mob, and as they came to the house the band
played " See the Conquering Hero comes." They came to
the back door, which was strongly fastened with one lock,
three bolts, and a chain. The defendant Balmford led the
others on, showing them what to do; and the defendant
Hounsfield told the mob not to mind the policemen, for that
they had no business there. The back door was for some
time tried to be forced, but without effect. Balmford told
them " that instrument (meaming the crowbar) would not
do," and another was sent for. The latter instrument, a
" sculler," now produced, was about three and a half feet
long, of iron throughout, and with two blunt prongs at one
end. The door was then soon forced. Dr. Holland, whe had
two or three others with him, besides the policemen, opposed
the mob by standing against the door, but the police suggested
that no further opposition should then be offered, for fear of
mischief; and, therefore. the mob were pernitted to rush in.
From forty to fifty of them came in and proceeded to the
kitchen, shouting and making a great noise. At this
time Mrs.i Holland was so unwell as to be confined to
her bed. Upon entering the kitchen, Mr. Hounsfield began
dancing about in an exulting manner, and called out to his
companions that he had at last got possession of his paternal
hearth. He made a speech to those around him, which
lasted for several minutes, and was received with applause by
the auditory. He said that a part of the people there might
go to the public-house, but not to go away, as they would
be wanted to throw out the doctor's furniture. Ale was then
brought in by somebody, but it did not appear upon whose
directions, or at whose expense. Five shillings, however,
was mentioned by some one of the party as the sum that
was to be paid for it. Defendant Hounsfield came to Dr.
Holland again then, and began talking about the latter
leaving the premises. Witness, in order to gain time, and
while more of the police were sent for, answered that he had
not quite made up his mind what he should do. The de-
fendant said he would give him two hours. Witness said to
him that Mrs. Holland was too ill to be removed; upon
which Hounsfield, addressing the mob, observed that that
was all a fetch of his. Having gone to Sheffield for a re.
inforcemeut of police, the doctor, on his return, found Mr.
Hounsfield reclining on a couch in the drawing-room, and
Mrs. Hounsfield sitting by reading one of the witness's
books. The mob were finally overcome by a considerable
body of police, about thirty-five, who were furnished with
side-arms for the occasion, and headed by Mr. Rainer, the
chief constable. Warrants had been obtained in the mean-
tiine, and Mr. Hounsfield and his wife were apprehended on
the spot, and taken away in a cab to Sheffield. The four
other defendants were also taken there, and as they were be-
ing led away, Dr Holland, and those who had charge of them,
were followed by the rest of the mob and pelted with stones.
Being cross-examined by Mr. Ingham, Dr. Holland said
he understood there was some relationship, by marriage, be-
tween his landlord and the family of Mr. Hounsfield. The
defendant's family once had considerable property in the
neighbourhood. Knew of no differences between the families
except what were owing to the insolvency of Mr. Hounsfield,
who had been in gaol for eight or ten years. The mob did
not strik any blows.
The evidence given by Dr. Holland was confirmed by Mr.
Thomas William Parkin, clerk to Mr. Coupland, who is a so-
licitor at Sheffield, and by other witnesses.
Mr. IsGuAst addressed the jury for the defendants, sug-
gesting many circumstances in mitigation of their conduct on
the day in question.
The jury desired to retire for a short time, and on their
return found all the defendants Guilty.
His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, said this had been a
case of very violent and quite unwarrantable conduct on the
part of all the defendants. But there was a great distinction
to be made between defendant Hounsfield and all the rest,
for in him the act had been infinitely more criminal and de-
serving of greater punishment than in his companions, which
latter he had been the means of leading into the lawless pro-
ceeding. The law never could allow persons to prosecute
their claims to property, however well founded, in this out-
rageous way, and when, in spite of the law, people would
do it, the security of property and of society required that
punishment should follow the offence, in order that there
might be example. Upon the defendant Hounsfield, there-
fore, the sentence was, that he be imprisoned in the house of
correction at Wakefield for nine months ; the other de-
fendants, four labouring men, whose offence certainly was
of a character less serious, were severally to be imprisoned
in the same house of correction for three months.