The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-08 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 6.

WESTERN CICCUIT.—SALISBURY.
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.)
J. Brewer was indicted for forging and uttering a re-
ceipt for 291. 10s. 4d. at Devizes.
Mr. W. Slade was counsel for the prosecutor, and Mr.
Arney defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was pay-sergeant in the
Royal Wilts Militia. In Junb the prisoner was asked by
the commanding officer for the bills of the month of May,
he had been asked several times for them. On the 16th
of June the prisoner gave his officer a receipt purporting
to be signed by a man named Medland. The officer told
him he did not think it was Medland's signature, but
the prisoner said it was. He said he paid 271., the bill
was for 291.105. 4d., and he supposed that as the bill
was receipted Medlaud intended to give him the 2/.
10s. 4d. The receipt was not in the handwriting of Med-
land, but was believed by three of the officers of the
Militia to be in the handwriting of the prisoner. Med-
land had not been paid the bill. Medland said he fre-
quently mad gratuities to the sergeants, as some required
it. _ _ _

Mr. Justice Coleridge told Medland this was an ex-
ceedingly bad practice, as, of course, he must charge a
higher price for his goods.
The prisoner had been in the service 23 years, and was
discharged with a pension of 2s. a-day and a certificate
of good character, and he had served 7 years in the
Wilts constabulary, whence he had come also with a
good character.
Mr. Arney, for the prisoner, said his answer to the
charge was that he had sent edland 271. by post, and
had received the receipt by post. The officers scarcely
knew anything of the handwriting of the prisoner, and
only expressed their opinion that the receipt in question
was written by the prisoner.
The learned Judge having summed up the case,
The jury returned a vsrdict of guilty of uttering, with
a strong recommendation to mercy.
Sentence—Two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
THE CONDEMNED CONVICTS AT WINCHESTER.
We can hardly imagine anything more dreadful than
the position of these wretched men. We must take it
that there is no doubt as to their guilt, at the same time
there are some matters which strike the mind. They are
foreigners, not understanding or speaking English. They
are brought to this country in custody and placed in gaol.
They have no friends—no kindly hand to assist them—
no one comes forward to defend or advise them. The
learned judge, with characteristic humanity, when he
arrived at Winchester, and finding that these men
were not defended, at once spoke to a gentleman at
the bar and requested him to take the case into his
hands, and to defend these men ; but this gentleman
did not see the prisoners to know what their story
was or what line of defence they would wish taken,
nor had he any instructions from an attorney. The
men are placed at the bar—everything is done for
them by the learned advocate that he could do, con-
sidering that be had no instructions. When the pri-
soners are convicted the first question is put to them.
They aro asked what they have to say why judgment
to die according to the law should not be passed upon
them. They then want to make their statement and
tell their story, but they are then told, and correctly
told, according to the ordinary rules of our criminal
trials, that the question asked them only applies to
matters of law, and not of fact, and that if they wish
to make any statement they must make it to the pro-
per quarter (the Secretary of State). They are then
condemned to die, and are taken back to the prison.
The time has then arrived for them to make their
statement, if their miserable state of mind enables
them to recollect that part of the judges's observa-
tions. But how aro they to do this ? They are, of
course, placed in separate cells, but they have the as-
sistance of an excellent man, a Catholic priest, whose
chief aim, of course, is to lead their minds from
earthly to heavenly things, and perhaps all the obser-
vations of the judge are lost sight of. They have no one
to communicate with them--there is no one in the pri-
son whe can speak their language, no one who can assist
them with advice or consolation or friendly converse in
the absence of the priest—they can only meditate upon
their dreadful fate, and remember that the day which is
to deprive them of life and remove them to another world
is fast approaching. In the course of this fortnight of
silent musing and horrible suspense the idea in their
mind is that they have not had a fair chance becauee
their statement has not been heard. In all probability
that statement would not change their position, but, in
mercy to them, should they not be afforded the means of
making it ?—for, be it recollected that the judge invited
' them to make it to the proper quarter.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—STAFFORD.
(Before Mr. Bran Watson.)
William Freeman, Thomas Bloor, Charles Wright,
and William Shaw, charged with night poaching at
Wolseley on the 12th of July last, and with assaulting
Lord Lichfield's keepers on that occasion, yesterday
pleaded guilty to assaulting Henry Martin, and occasion-
ing actual bodily harm.
It appeared that the prisoners, with three other per-
sons, one of whom had turned approver, left the neigh-
bourhood of Uttoxeter on the night in question with
nets and dogs, and proceeded to Wolseley, a distance of
several miles, and there laid their nets on the side of the
public road leading from Wolseley to Stafford, and drove
rabbits into them. The adj )ining land was the property,
of Sir Charles M. Wolseley, but, by an arrangement be-
tween him and the Earl of Lichfield, the latter exercised
the right of shooting over that part of the Wolseley
estates, and on the night of the 12th July a keeper of
his lor 'E6ip's, assisted by keepers of Sir C. Wolseley and
the Marquis of Anglesey, being on the watch for poachers,
caught the prisoner Moor in the act of taking a rabbit
out of the net, and handcuffed him. A. deadly con-
flict ensued between- the keepers and the rest of the
poachers, and Henry Martin, the Marquis of Angle-
sey's keeper, received severe injuries from stones
thrown at him, his teeth being knocked out, and his
jaw fractured. The poachers escaped and carried Bloor
with them, knocking off his handcuffs on the road home.
They were subsequently captured by police constables.
His Lordship, having taken time to consider what
sentence to pass ou the prisoners, now ordered them to
be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three years,
expressing a hope that it would have the effect of break-
ing up the large gang of which it was evident the pri-
soners formed a part.

Im,....0.11••••I•

GLOUCESTER.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
Mary Yarnell, aged 30, was charged with the wilful
murder of Diana Yarnell, her infant child, aged four
months, at Tewkesbury, on the 15th of September.
Mr. Powell appeared for the prosecution; Mr skinner,
at the request of the learned judge, undertook to watch
the case for the prisoner.
This case appeared to be a very peculiar one. The
prisoner, as soon as she came into the dock, began
talking incessantly, and the burden of her tonve was
complaints of her neighbourg, who had preferred against
her a charge of neglect, which had resulted in the death
of one child by starvation and filth, and of another, a
stepchild aged seven years, by neglect and a kick on the
back. The prisoner continued her complaints through.
out the trial, abusing all the witnesses as they appeared
in the box, and calling them by opprobrious names.
Mr. Powell having stated the facts of the case, called
the following witnesses
F. J. Prior said,--1- am surgeon to the Tewkesbury
Union. I attended the prisoner a few hours
after the birth of the child Diana. It was a healay
child. The mother had milk, plenty of milk. The
child began to fall off in between a week and a fortnight.
I was called to her house, and I went. I asked her why
she did not suckle her child' I told her she must
suckle it, or she would get into trouble. She said she
did suckle it. It was always filthily dirty and neglected.
I told her it ought to be kept clean. I saw her every
now and then. I always remonstrated with her, but I
could not get the child properly suckled or properly
cleaned. I thought it would lead to the death of the
child, and I took the coroner, Mr. Thomas,
to it. Its
said, in her presence, it was very horrible. We both
remonstrated. The child lost its eyes from ophthalma.
The sight twas 3 lost tby neglect. The child was not
brought to the infirmary, and I could not see it whon I
called. Ophthalmia is increased by neglect. When
brought to the workhouse it was in a wasted state, and
very dirty, both 'the clothes and the body. It was
properly nursed, but died in about nine days after. I
attribute the death to the mother's neglect. I have seen
food in the house.
Cross-examiaed—lf a child is not suckled by its mother
it will generally die of marasmus, or starvation. Thera
was no post mortem examination, I did not think it