The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-12 00:00:00

THOMAS BROMHEAD V. THOMAS SPARLING.

This was an action on the case to recover damages for an
injury sustained by the plaintiff by being bitten, and having
his clothes rent by a ferocious dog, kept by the defendant.
The declaration charged that the dog was used and accus-
tomed to attack and bite mankind, and did bite the plain-
tiff. First plea, not guilty; Second plea, that the defendant
did not keep the dog.
Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., and Mr. Wildman conducted the
plaintiff's case. Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., and Mr. Willmore ap-
peared as counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff is a journeyman blacksmith, and the de-
fendant the keeper of a beer. shop in Far- street, Horncastle.
As the plaintiff, shortly after ten o'clock at night, on the
27th of May last, was passing the defendant's house, in his
way along Far-street, two dogs'of the bull-terrier breed, one
being of a red and white, and the other of a black and
white colour, rushed upon and attacked him, and the
latter, having bitten and rent his clothes near the shoulder,
very severely bit his right hand. A neighbour of the de-
fendant, seeing what was occurring, came out from his shop
on the opposite side of the way and helloed to the dogs,
upon which they :au away up the defendant's yard. The
plaintiff then pursued his way until he met a policeman, to
whom he made complaint of what had happened to him,
and showed him his terribly lacerated hand, and who ac-
companied him back to Sparling's, and went up the back-
yard, where he saw the red and white dog, but not the
other. He then went to the defendant and asked him where
his dogs were, and he answered that they were both locked
up. The policeman then said that he had just seen the red
and white one up his back yard, upon which he demanded
to know what business he had upon his premises, and stated
that the other was locked up. The constable said, " Yes,
but it was not locked up a few minutes ago," and the de-
fendant replied that it had been locked up all the evening.
and a man named Attercliffe could prove it. The policeman
to this answered that the man Attercliffe would swear to
anything for a pint of beer, and he would not believe him
upon his oath.
Thomas Wilkinssn, a lad in the service of Mr. Cooke, a
veterinary surgeon, living next door to the defendant, de-
posed that he kept a Tom and Jerry shop (beer-shop), and
two dogs, one of which was red and white and the other
black and white. The latter was of the hull-terrier breed,
and very savage, and bit him (the witness) when he was
going to Mr. Day's bakehouse, carrying the bread. He was
on one side of the road, and the dog on the other, and crossed
over to him, and he did not see hint until he got held of him.
Both the dogs were at the plaintiff, and the black and white
one bit his hand. Mr. Hewett, a potter, called out, and then
both the dogs ran up the defendant's yard. He had fre-
quently seen them there, and knew them both very well.'
Other witnesses proved the ferocious character of the dog,
and that it was used to attack people, and left no reasonable
doubt that it was kept by the defendant.

The plaintiff haccsuffered great pain, and been ill for se •
veral weeks; he had also incurred some small expense in ef-
fecting a cure. _ _

Th jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
25/.

CROWN COURT.--(Before Lord Chief Justice Timm.)
Two Irish labourers, of the names of Welch and Glynn,
were indicted for a rape, within the precincts of the city, on
the 22d of August last, upon the person of one Mary, the
wife of George Lee, a monstrously dirty member of the
gipsy tribe, at the age of about 60.
Mr.•D'Eyrcourt conducted the prosecution; Mr. Macaulay
defended the prisoners.

It appeared that there was an encampment of gipsies in
Greetwell-lane, in or near the city, on the night in question,
which, at the dead hour of the night, whilst the tribe slum-
bered in peace was outrageously stormed by a party of wanton
• Irishmen, who remorselessly demolished their tents, and
sought to defile the female members of the tribe, succeeding
successively in their base assault upon the prosecutrix, whilst
her husband was engaged in running after his use, which had
made off down a lane with a load of blankets at the out-
break of the engagement. She, with her husband, reposed
in one tent, her two daughters, of whom one was a widow,
in another, and a kinsman and his wife in another. She bad
also a son, twenty-six years old, who seemed to have acted
as patrol. The assault opened with an attack upon the tent
of the daughter?, which, after they had refused to let the
Irishmen go to bed to them, was carried, and razed to the
ground ; but the Irishmen being, by recourse to throats
and nails, repulsed in their further attack upon the
daughters, turned off to the old woman's tent. While
Glynn succeeded with the mother Welch held the widowed
daughter, after which the prisoners interchanged their posi-
tions. There was a party of nine or ten Irishmen behind
the hedge.
The unhappy aged victim of Irish concupiscence deposed
to the leading facts. The parties first began heaving stones.
The two prisoners did it. The other nine or ten did not in-
terfere or throw stones. They knew previously that the men
wanted to go to bed with the young women, who wouldn't
have it on no account. One of the men hugged and ravished
witness. Welch began. Welch then threw her down and
ravished her. She struggled as much as she could while she
had strength, but she was an old woman, and hadn't much
strength left. Welch, with the blunt edge of a hatchet, be-
longing to the camp, struck her under the right ear after
both had had connexion with her. They then dragged her
about the road with violence. Each held the daughter Susan
while the other proceeded with her.
Cross-examined—One of those she called her daughters
was a wife, and large in the family way, and was glad to
rim away in her chemise with her baby tucked under her
arm. Had no means of knowing where her husband was
while she was ravished. They stoned him away. (The ex-
amination of the husband before the magistrates was
here put in, which was upon several points very
materially at variance with her statement here to day.)
Welch used the hatchet. If she before stated it was Glynn
it was because she was so frightened. Could take oath that
both had connexion with her. They lost blankets and clothes,
her husband's hat, and some strops. Her husband went
right off towards Lincoln. After the ravishing they struck
the daughter a blow, which made her reel across the road.
f;tusan Herring, the widowed daughter, deposed to the
same story that the old woman told to-day. The men came
to their camp, and wanted to go to bed with them. They
began to pull up their camps—her camp and another. All
the rest but she and her mother went away. Glynn held
her so that she couldn't assist her mother. [She then de-
scribed what was done by Welch to her mother.] They
threatened to murder them if they gave any alarm. Welch
afterwards dragged her (witness) about the road by the
legs, and used her very bad indeed. She row said (having
before the magistrates, like her mother, said re to both mat-
ters quite the core rary), that it was Welch who struck her
mother with a hatchet before he ravished her. The men all
went away because they thought they would be murdered
amongst so many.
The mother and daughter both told their tale with an air
of no:who/once, and quite con ornate.
George Lee—Was the husband of the old woman. The
two prisoners came to the camp and began to stone them.