The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-04 00:00:00

HOCKLEY AND OTHERS V. MASON.

This was an action by the plaintiffs as executors of
James Crooke, formerly a brewer of Guildford, against the
defendant John Mason, of Guildford, shopkeeper, on a
promissory dated May, 1828, for 381., payable with interest
on demand.

Mr. PLATT and Mr. CHAMBERS were for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. THESIGER for the defendant.

Mr. PLATT stated the cese, and said he should prove
defendant's hand-writing, which was the disputed point.
John Mills—Had known defendant thirty years, and had
frequently seen him write ; had no doubt that the signature
to the note was defendant's writing.
Cross-examined—Never saw him sign John Mason,
senior.

Francis Piggott, a banker's clerk, had no doubt it was
defendant's signature.

Arthur Muggridge and Andrew Hooke also thought the
signature to be defendant's hand-writing.
Jnmes Crooke was son of the testator ; his father wrote
the body of the note ; defendant told witness that it was
not his signature, but the signature of his son, John

Mason ; defendant said he had been very ill-used at
Guildford, but witness's father had been his best friend.

Mr. THESIGER (for the defendant) said he should prove
the signature was not the defendant's hand-writing. He
should call for the books of the deceased ; and if they
contained a charge to the amount of 381. against the de-
fendant, he would surrender the cause.
Mr. PLATT said there were no such books.

John Drewitt had known defendant 25 years ; the hand.
writing was so much larger and better than defendant's
that he did not think it was his.

William Inskip had known defendant 18 years ; did not
believe it to be defendant's signature ; all the letters but
the o and the h in John were different.
Joseph Mason, defendant's son—lt was not his father's
signature ; his father signed, " John Mason, sen. ;" his fa-
ther was not in want of money in 1828 ; there were three
other John Masons in the town, besides witness's brother.
William Mason, another son, said it was not his father's
hand-writing.
Mr. PLATT, in reply, stated that the defendant had not
ventured to call his son, John Mason, who, if he had really
signed the note, as the defendant had stated, would, by his
evidence, have put an end to the case. It was not the
custom for fathers to write " senior" at the end of their
names, although sons frequently wrote " junior" at the end
of theirs.
His Lonnsrn having summed up,
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found for the plain
tiffs—Dama7e3. A.. 91. 7s. ud.
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)

Mary Ann Berry, aged 27, was indicted for the man-
slaughter of Maria Drake.
Mr. CHAMBERS conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
DUNBAR the defence.
Mrs. Isabella Gardner—On Tuesday, the 24th of June,
in the afternoon, witness saw the deceased standing
on the top of some rubbish in Mint-square, in the Borough,
and saw the prisoner prisoner run to her, up with her fist,
and knock her on the side of her head ; the deceased im-
mediately fell, and the prisoner stooped and continued her
blows upon the deceased's face and bosom ; she struck
about six or eight blows ; her hands went very fast ; the
prisoner's husband ran up, put his hands round her waist,
and carried her to her father's door, and pushed her in ; in
about two Zr three minutes' time the deceased got up ; she
died on the Friday morning, at one o'clock.
Cross-examined—The prisoner told deceased, if she
would come down, she would serve her out ; never heard
that deceased died of the cholera ; witness did not strike
the prisoner's father-in-law in the face, but the prisoner
herself struck him.

Edward Evans, surgeon, examined the body of the de-
ceased ; there were several extensive contusions ; the inner
coat of the stomach and the upper part of the intestines
were slightly inflamed ; the immediate cause of death was
from the slightly inflamed state of the stomach bringing on
sickness and bilious diarrhcea, from the unhealthy action of
the stomach and bowels ; it might be produced by blows,
by the concussion the body received, and by excitement ;
could not swear that the state of the stomach was occa-
sioned by blows, but blows and stamping on the soft parts
would be sufficient to produce the effect that followed ;
bilious diarrhcea very seldom proved mortal, unless there
was something to add to it.

Mr. Justice LiTTLEDALE thought the cause of death to
be too remote and speculative to convict the prisoner.—
Not Guilty.

Thomas Pitson, aged thirty, was indicted for the man.
slaughter of Henry Hawes.

an Friday, 10th of July, the prisoner, who was a coal-
whipper, was at work near St. Katharine's Dock with the
deceased, who was a more powerful and heavier, but older
man than himself. They had been previously good friends ;
but it appeared that the deceased had been remarkably
quarrelsome and desirous of fighting the prisoner during
the greater part of the day, and that the prisoner refused
to fight, saying he had a large family to work for and main-
ta:n. They afterwards went into a public-house and drunk
some porter. Whilst there William Bickerston, the waiter,
gave evidence that the deceased took a halfpenny out of his
pocket, and told the prisoner he was determined either to
lick or be licked, and that he would fight him for that half-
penny. The prisoner said, if he would have it, he must, and
rose. Witness interfered, and got between them, on which
they went out, and the deceased struck the prisoner, and
the prisoner struck the deceased in the mouth, a pretty
hard blow, and he fell with the back of his head on the
stones ; the prisoner struck only one blow ; the deceased
was the most violent ; the prisoner did not wish to quarrel.
Burgess, an officer, saw the blow struck, and the de-
ceased fall ; the prisoner appeared very sorry, and stood
still ; he afterwards assisted in carrying deceased into the
public-house, and said he would rather have given 5/. than
that it should have happened ; the deceased-was not then
supposed in danger. _

Other witnesses proved that the prisoner was desirous to
avoid fighting, and was a quiet man.
The deceased was conveyed to St. Thomas's Hospital in
this county, where he shortly afterwards died.
Mr. Meymott, the surgeon, stated that the skull was
fractured, and that. death was occasioned by the extravasa-
tion of blood, caused principally by the laceration of the
brain.

This witness was ingeniously cross-examined by Mr.
Chambers, with a view to show that the rupture of the
vessels which occasioned the collection of blood might have
arisen from the deceased's own excitement and exertion ;
but he thought not, although he would not positively swear
that the fracture caused the death.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said if the deceased had struck
the prisoner in the public-house, and the blow had been im-
mediately returned, it might have been justifiable homicide ;
but the prisoner agreed to fight, and they both went out
f)r that purpose. It therefore, was not an act of self-
defence, but amounted to manslaughter.
Verdict—Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.
His LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to ten days' im-
prisonment.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—WARTrIcr, Auousr 1.
(Nisi Prius Court.—Before Mr. Justice PARK, and a Special
Jury.)
cium. CON.---BIRD V. SMART.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The da-
mages were laid at 5,0001.

Mr. Serjeant GOULBURN, Mr. HILL, and Mr. Amos
conducted the case for the plaintiff ; Mr. BALGUY
CLARK appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Serjeant GOTILBURN stated the case. and Mr.
The plaintiff carried on the business of a general carrier,
on a very extensive scale in the town of Birmingham. The
defendant was a corn-factor, residing in the same
town.
The parties were near neighbours, and lived on terms of
the most intimate familiarity. During the continuance of
this friendly intercourse, it was alleged that the defendant,
Mr. Smart, forgetting the principles of a man of honour,
had converted the confiding indulgence of his friend into
the means of effecting his disgrace ; it was alleged that,
profiting by the opportunities afforded him by the unsus-
pecting friendship of the husband, he had prosecuted his
designs against the wife, and had finally succeeded in ac-
complishing her ruin.

Adams Birch —I m a solicitor, living at Kidderminster,
and brother to the plaintiff ; he was married to Sarah
Walton, at St. Mary's church, Lichfield, on the 7th of
• August, 1824 ; he was then 27 years of age ; I have not
been much in the habit of visiting them ; but, as far as my
observation went, they were living very happily together ;
they have had one child ; my brother always treated his
wife with the greatest kindness, which was returned on her
part.

Cross-examined by Mr. CLARK—When the subject of
the present action was first spoken of, I was sent for by my
father, who resides seven miles from Birmingham ; at my
father's house I had an interview with the solicitor for the
plaintiff and my father ; I went in a carriage with Mr.
Haynes, my step-father, and'a sister of Mrs. Bird, to my
brother's house ; I saw Mrs. Bird, and requested her to
go to her brother ; she appeared very much surprised and
shocked, and refused to comply with my request ; she said
she would not be taken from her husband's house, and de-
sired to see him ; she was not allowed to see him ; I did not
tell her that if she did not leave the house, means would be
taken to compel her ; all that was done took place in the
presence and with the concurrence of her brother.
Jonathan Worthington—l live at Worcester ; I have
been for a long period acquainted with the plaintiff and his
wife ; he always treated her with the greatest tenderness.
Cross-examined—I visit them once or twice a year ; I
met several people there at supper ; amongst others the
defendant Smart, Mr. Everard, a Birmingham manufac-
turer, and his wife. Mrs. Everard and Mrs. Bird seemed
to be on very intimate terms.

John Barnet, brother-in-law to the plaintiff, likewise bore
testimony to the harmony that existed between the parties.
Ann Lee—l ara living at service at Perry-bar ; I was in
the service of the plaintiff, Mr. Bird, in May, 1832, and
left it in the February following ; I gave my mistress notice
in consequence of some difference between us ; while I was
in the service of Mrs. Bird, I was frequently employed by
her to carry notes to Mr. Smart ; I took as many as twenty
or thirty ; her usual directions to me on such occasions were
not to deliver the note if Mr. Bird, or any one else hap-
pened to be in the warehouse, but to say that I was going
for some music which Miss Hans had promised to write for
her ; Mr. Bird usually came home to supper on Saturday
at nine, and was absent again till one o'clock ; Saturdays,
Tuesdays, and Thursdays were busy nights, being fly"
nights ; Smart came in at seven o'clock in the evening after
I had taken a note ; he went into the dining-room ; the
drawing-room is in front, and the dining-room is in the rear ;
they are connected by folding doors ; I had brought in
candles and pulled down the blinds before they went it
blind was not quite so wide as the window

; the
the shutters