The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-13 00:00:00

FOUR-OARED CUTTER RACE.

A cutter race between two fours, manned by very re-
spectable master tradesmen, came off yesterday evening,
and was very well attended by aquatic men anxious to
witness the race. The distance was from the Feathers,
at Wandsworth, down to Mr. Wentzell's, the Ship, Lam-
beth, and the prizes four silver oars and rudder, pre-
sented by Mr. Morton, of the Canterbury Arms, Upper
Marsh, Lambeth, as an encouragement to cutter rowing.
Messrs. Baines, 1; Ralph, 2; Palmer, 3; Sanderson,
stroke; F. Stanley (steerer) (Red) 1
Messrs. Dimes, 1; J. Clayton, 2; R. Cla.yton, 3;
Bliuckho, stroke; G. Jones (steerer) (Yellow) 0
They went off evenly and well, at a clipping pace; but
soon after the start the winners, who had the best sta-
tion and advantage of weight, gradually took the lead,
maintained it, and won by a good distance—the losing
crew giving it up shortly before the distance post,

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover damages through injuries he had sustained
through the alleged negligence of the defendants.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr.
Lush were for the plaintiff; Sergeant Channell, Mr.
Bramwell, Q.C., and Mr. Bovill were counsel for the
company ; Mr. Willis watched the case on behalf of
the South-Eastern Railway Company, whose interests
were involved in this inquiry.
The circumstances under which the action was
brought were of rather a peculiar character, inasmuch
as the plaintiff appeared to have sustained the injuries
for which he sought compensation while he was tra-
velling by one of the South-Eastern trains ; and not
by any direct act of the defendants. It appeared that
the accident occurred on the 14;h of March, and the
evidence went to show that what is called a "pick-up
train" had started from London between the ordinary
quarter past seven o'clock Croydon train and the
Dover and Hastings train, which started from London
at half-past seven. The Croydon train passed New
Cross, the scene of the accident, with safety, and upon
the arrival of the " pick up" it stopped for the pur-
pose of having some carriages attached to it, and to
effect this it was necessary that it should be
" shunted" off the main line to a siding. At this pe-
riod it was admitted that the Dover train was known
to be nearly due, but it appeared that before the tail
carriages of the "pick-up" train were got off the main
line the expected train came up and ran into them,
causing thereby a violent concussion and serious in-
jury to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was
that the .traia_ of the South-Eastern Conipany had
started in due course, that they were entitled to travel
freely upon the line, and that the accident had been
occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the
defendants in not having the line cleared, and permit-
ting the obstruction to be up6n it, which was the oc-
casion of the accident.

Sergeant CHANNELL made an able address to the
jury on behalf of the defendants, and the defence he
attempted to establish was, that the accident had
been occasioned by, the negligence of the guards and
drivers of the South-Eastern train, and their inatten-
tion to signals that were made to them to stop before
the accident occurred. Several servants of the Brighton
Company were called as witnesses, but their evidence
was very far from making out the case as suggested
by the Learned Sergeant ; for although it appeared
that two green flags had been exhibited as signals, it
was admitted that they only indicated caution to the
coming train, and that the red flag, which was an in-
dication of danger, was not shown at all ; and one of
the witnesses admitted that he was not even aware
that the " pick-up" train was to be " shunted" in the
way described, and that if he bad, he should certainly
have exhibited the " danger" signal. It was like-
wise elicited in the course of cross-examination that a
clock at the station which regulated the movements
of a large number of trains was four minutes too
slow, and the switchman said, in answer to questions
put to him by Mr. Chambers, that the clock was in
his charge, and that he wound it up, but he at the
same time stated that he had no correct means of
knowing whether it kept good time or uot; it being
at the same time proved in evidence that the process
of " shunting" occupied from seven to ten minutes ;
that a great number of trains were continually pass-
ing ; and that every minute was occasionally of the
utmost importance as regarded the safety of the public
travelling upon the railway.
Mr. CHAMBERS, in a brief reply, urged that the
evidence which had been adduced for the defendants
really tended to strengthen the case for the plaintiff.
It was no part of his case to enter into any supposed
opposition between the Dover and the Brighton Rail-
way Companies; but he could not help observing that
there was some ground for supposing that this unfor-
tunate accident had arisen in consequence of an at-
tempt to obstruct the passage of the train of the Doter
Company to Hastings, that route being in opposition
to the Brighton Railway Company, and he submitted
that, at all events, the accident was clearly proved to
have been caused by the want of proper signals and
the false clock.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the case with
his usual care and clearness. He said that before the
jury could return a verdict against the defendants
they must be satisfied that the acaident had arisen
solely through the negligence of their servants ; and
if they considered that an equal portion of blame at-
tached to the servants of the South-Eastern Com-
pany, in that case the defendants were entitled to a
verdict. His Lordship then called the attention of
the jury to the facts of the case, and said that he
could not help expressing his strong disapprobation at
the manner in which the clock, upon the accuracy of
which the lives of so many people necessarily de-
pended, was taken charge of, and that it should not
give the time correctly, when almost every minute was
of importance in performing the necessary operations
at the station.

The jury after deliberating for about a quarter of
an hour returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
1,5001.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Bridgewater, Aug. 11.
(Before Lord CAMPBELL.)
William Sibley was indicted for the manslaughter
of Philip Hooyer by striking him on the head with
a stick and giving him several mortal wounds, of
which he died.
Mr. Alien conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Edwards defended the prisoner.
It appeared that on the 29th of May the deceased
and the prisoner and a number of other persons were
assembled at the Beambridge Inn to hold a club
meeting. They then left for the purpose of proceed-
ing to their homes. As soon as they were out of the
door the deceased commenced a row with a man
named Drew. Some of the other men joined in it.
They armed themselves with sticks. During the
row the prisoner Sibley struck the deceased a blow
on the head with a stick. This blow felled him to
the ground, and the prisoner continued to beat him
when he was down. Some of the men interfered and
took the deceased into the inn, where in a few mi-
nutes he expired. The prisoner was at once secured
and a surgeon was sent for. It was admitted that
the deceased was of a very quarrelsome disposition,
and that many of the men were intoxicated.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was
sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment, with
hard labour.
William Boucher was indicted for shooting at John
Birley with a loaded pistol, with intent to maim him,
at Bath, on the 30th of July.
Mr. Lloyd and Mr. W. T. Saunders were counsel
for the prosecution ; and Mr. Stone and Mr. Allen
defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was a confidential
clerk and cashier in the employ of Mr. Tucker, a
linendraper at Bath, and Birley was in the service of
Messrs. Jones and Bensley, also linendrapers, and
both these parties had back premises looking out on
Parsonage-lane. It would seem there had been a
good deal of " larking" going on between the young
men of both these establishments, and they had been
in the habit of throwing water over each other as they
passed along the lane. On Friday, the 25th of July,
this sport had been going on, and the prisoner being
of a sporting turn of mind, kept pistols, and powder
and shot and caps, and he thought by firing off
pistol he should put an end to this kind of thing, and
he did not consider that by putting a few shot into
the pistol he should do any one any harm ; and at
about half-past eleven o'clock that night the prisoner
fired the pistol from the window of the room in which
he slept, and a shot struck Birley on the head. It
was not suggested that the prisoner had any felonious
intent.
Lord CAMPBELL said that there was every reason to
believe that the pistol was fired merely to frighten,
and the offence amounted merely to an assault.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of a common
assault.
Lord CAMPBELL said firearms were not to be played
with, and therefore the prisoner must be imprisoned
for one month.
John Jenkins, a decent-looking boy, was indicted
for cutting and wounding James Hawler, with in-
tent, &c.
Mr. Hodges prosecuted, Mr. Stone defended.
It appeared that Hawler was a labourer residing at
Nempnett. On the 11th of April he was in the belfry.
The prisoner came in and kept poking Ilawler with a
stick. Hawler told him to be quiet, but as he did not de-
sist he made towards the prisoner, who then ran away. '
wAftereer
lteheakti
nt
gh e en
es agfruanveeraulp,
eaendthtwe caheidldrthene
was
prisoner threw stones at them. Hawler told him to
he quiet, and then the prisoner threw a stone at him.
Ilawler followed him, and struck him on the back
with his hat. The prisoner then put his hand in his
pocket and pulled out a knife and opened it, and said,
" If Sou don't mind whet you are about I'll put this
knife into you. llawler said, " Young man, you
had better put that knife in your pocket again," and
put out his left arm to catch him to make him put
the knife in his pocket, and the prisoner dug the knife
into his hand and pulled it across it. Hawler could
I not do anything for seven weeks, and cannot use his

A witness gave the prisoner a good character, but
admitted that he had heard that be had beaten a girl
cruelly.

Lord CAMPBELL said it was a very di s tressing case
on account of the youth of tho prisone r. The jury,
perhaps, might consider that he had nc yt intended to
do bodily harm.
The jury found him Guilty lof a co nmon assault
only.
Lord CAMPBELL said—What am Ito do with him ?
I don't like to send him to a'common ; gaol ; and yet
he must not escape. He must be sentenced to one
month's solitary confinement.
The case excited great interest.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice Co-
LERIDGE and a Special Jury...)
FRANCIS v. LEACH AND ANOTI [ER•

Mr. Crowder, Mr. Barstow, and Mr. Leigh were
counsel for the plaintiff; and r. Butt, Mr. Fitzher-
bert, and Mr. M. Smith for the defendamt.
This was an action brought to recorver damages
against the defendants, who ate attorneys in this
county, for negligence.
The defendants had prepared a will for a Miss
Bondfield, who was tenant in tail of an &date, and by
this will she devised her estate and interest to the
defendants, in trust for the plaintiff. She subse-
quently suffered a recovery, barring the, entail, and
acquiring the fee. This had the effect of revoking
the will. The testatrix then became lunatic, and a
commission of lunacy was issued, unde r which she
was-declared to-be-a lunatic. Shortly a fterwards she
had a lucid interval, and then republished her will,
and subsequently died. The plaintiff was all this
time abroad, and was a minor. The d efendants re-
ceived the rents. The plaintiff came of .age in 1835,
and in 1838, upon his marriage, a settlement was
executed containing a power of sale. The property
had been mortgaged. In 1848 the plai ottiff became
embarrassed, and the estate was offered for sale under
conditions which did not contain any nAotice of the
lunacy, nor was that fact mentioned in th,e abstract of
title, though the fact it was presumed wis known in
the neighbourhood. The purchasers afterwards re-
fused to complete the purchase, and the question now
was, whether this suppression of the lunacy was an act
of negligence.
For the plaintiff several attorneys were called, who
gave it as their opinion that it amounted to negli-
gence.
For the defendants it was urged, that s« the fact of
the lunacy was well known in the neighbourhood,
it was not requisite to mention it in the conditions
of sale.

The Learned JUDGE having summed lip,
The jury returned a verdict for the plain.:tiff for 2501.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.--Gloucester, Aug. 11.

The commission was opened on Saturday. The
Court sat to-day at ten for the dispatch of business.
On the civil side there was an entry of &leen causes,
of which five were marked for special juries. Of
these, one, which was expected to occupy several
days, has been arranged out of court. This was " The
Queen at the relation of Lovegrove v. Pr aen," which
was a proceeding by quo warranto to try the validity
of the election of the defendant as conseer for the
Cheltenham district of this county, in last August,
on which occasion it was alleged in the declaration
that 300 freehold votes, of the value of ls. each, were
fraudulently manufactured during the progress of the
election, and recorded for the defendant, who, how-
ever, by his pleas, denied the truth, of this allegation.
The private arrangement of this cause will, it is
thought, enable their Lordships to bring the assizes
to a close about Thursday. It is considered quite
certain that the calendar will be disposed of by that
time. The number of cases in it does not exceed the
average, and is 63. Of these, lis charged with mur-
der, 2 with manslaughter, 6 with rape, 2 with assault
with intent to commit rape, 1 with bigerrty, 7 with
robbery, 8 with burglary, 3 with forgery, 1 with
poaching, 1 with arson, 2 with forcible entry, 1 with
uttering counterfeit coin, and the rest am common
larcenies.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice E IMF and a

Common Jury.)
PAGE V. COSTING.

Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Gray for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cooke for the defendant,
This was an action for adultery with the plaintiff's
wife ; plea, not guilty.
Henry Watkins—l live in Cheltenham. Was for-
merly a fly proprietor ; now in no business, I have
known plaintiff for fifty years ' • he was a brickmaker,
but has left off business. His former mile died some
years ago. His present wife was servan; in ibis family
some years before his first wife's death, and continued
so after her death. The plaintiff married her about
three years after the death of the fir& wife:. I was
present at the marriage, which took plate at Dedding-
ton church, in Oxfordshire. I have been in the habit
of visiting them since. Have lived in :he same town,
about a mile from them. They lived happy, so far
as keeping a very good house, and haring everything
in it. They lived, from the time of their marriage,
in a cottage in Clare-street, on the Bath-road, till
December, when they removed to Francis-:street.
Cross-examined—l am a gentleman. The plaintiff
is about 73. She is about 22. Never heard before
the marriage that they cohabited. (lave fieen marks
of violence on her arms.

e_
Did he not knock out his first wife's eye ?
His LORDSHIP—What is the object of this in-
quiry ? May it not be possible that, though un-
kind to the first wife, he may be very kind to the
second ?
Mr.
C ooKE—That may be possible; but the object
of this inquiry is to ascertain what is the plaintiff's
notion of domestic happiness.—(A laugh.)
Witness (in continuation)—Page told me that he
and his wife spent a day happily together a fortnight
ago. He told me she called one day, but not that
she stopped there. He first denied she had been
there at all, but afterwards admitt©d she had called. I
kept putting it at him, and then he told me.
Re-examined--Never heard of any scandal respect-
ing the plaintiff and his wife before the marriage. The
mark on her arm was three or four years ago. Never
saw any ill-usage on his part; they always seemed, so
far as I saw, very happy and comfortable. If he did
anything, it was not in my presence.
Henry Dinham—l am brother to Mrs. Page. I
have lived as servant to Mr. Page for four years.
Remember being with him last harvest in a wheat
field that is near defendant's brickyard- Had seen
Costins at plaintiff's house frequently before that. Mr.
Page sent me to Mr. Hollis's for powder and flint. 1
called at plaintiff's house as I came back. Mr. Page
told me to call and have my dinner, and I called. As
I passed the window I saw Mr. Costins kissing Mrs.
Page in the kitchen, standing up with his arm round
her neck. I went to the brewhouse window, and I
saw them go into the parlour. I went back to the
parlour door and kneeled on the mat and looked
through the keyhole, and I saw my sister and Costins
there. (The other details are unfit for publication.)
They got up in about five minutes, and I went to the
kitchen fire and sat down, and he came out and said
to me, " I have been to the parlour to see the shells."
I said " I suppose you have," and she catched me up
and said, " Yes, we have." I had my dinner and re-
turned to the wheat field, and said nothing to Mr.
Page. I remember, some days afterwards, being sent
home again, and seeing her and him again in the
kitchen on a big easy chair.
His LORDSHIP here interposed, and suggested that
it was not necessary to go into further details; for if
the witness was to be believed as to one transaction it
would be sufficient.
To this the plaintiff's counsel acceded.
Witness (in continuation)—I first told Mr. Page
about it after she left.
Cross-examined—She left five or six months ago.
I have seen her at Mr. Page's within the e last Sunday
or so, in the kitchen. Another girl (Marianne
Barber) fetched her to the house. I did not hear
Mr. Page desire Marianne tafetch her. I did not
see her in the parlour that Sunday. I was not
there that Sunday. She was gone before I came
back the next morning. I saw her in the house
about half-past five o'clock the next morning.
I slept that night with :Mr. Page, and she did
not. She was there on the Sunday evening. I
meant that I was not at home during the day on that
Sunday. She came the next Sunday. Mr. Page
went for her to Mr. Redcot's house. She was in the
kitchen. There was a tablecloth on the table. She
slept there that night in the arm-chair in the kitchen.
Mr. Page went to her. I have not heard from Mr.
Page lately that she was walking with him in the
Bath-road. I know Mr. Giles, a baker, who lives
in the Bath-road. When she left that Monday
morning Mr. Page went with her to the gate. He
has continued to be very kind to me since my sister
left. I never told Giles that I had not seen Costins
kiss Mrs. Page.
COUNSEL—Did you tell Mr. Chesshyre, the lawyer,
in the presence of Giles, that you had seen Costins
I kiss Mrs. Page ? Witness—No, I did not. I was
asked whether I had seen him kiss her, and I said 1
would not tell anything about it. When I saw them

from the keyhole in the parlour they were on the
floor near the fireplace. I do not know when this
happened—whether last year, or the year before, or
what year. Ido not know how many harvests ago
this happened. Two, I think. It was before the
wheat was cut. The second transaction occurred
about two or three days after the first. lam now 14.
Mrs. Page did not seem angry when she left. My
sister threatened to beat my brains out if ever I told
any one about it. This was the next day after I had
seen them. She knew I had seen it. I was in the
kitchen, and she came and said she would beat my
brains out. I had not been talking to her about it.
Have seen her with a black eye. Never saw them
fighting.

-Re-examined—They could not see me pass the
kitchen window. Is was after the second time that she
threatened to beat my brains out. When Mr. Chas-
shyre, the lawyer, spoke to me I said "No" twice,
meaning I would not tell them anything about it.
Marianne Barber—l am employed as an occasional
servant by Mr. Page. I remember Mrs. Page
coming to his house one Sunday evening about nine
o'clock, about a month ago. She knocked. I opened
the door and asked her in. She saw Mr. Page. He
did not ask her in. He was not in at the time. He
was down in the garden, and came in and said to
her, as she was standing at the door, " What do you
want here ?" She answered that she came on busi-
ness. He replied, " I suppose you are come to tor-
ment me." She then came into the kitchen with me
and sat down. She had been there in the afternoon
before this. The first time she came to the door was
about half-past one. She saw Mr. Page then, and
came into the parlour, and sat down. Mr. Costins
came in half an hour afterwlrds, and asked if Mrs.
Page was come there. I answered the door, and
Mrs. Page said, " Please to Come in, Mr. Costins."
Mr. Page got up and told him to go out. Mr.
Costins then said, if he did not see her there, he
would see her somewhere else, and went away.
She stopped about an' hour the first time, and
went away. She came, as far as I know, of her
own accord. About a month ago she came the
first time—about three weeks the second time.
She stayed all night, one way or other, talk-
ing. When I asked her to come in, she
would not unless she was asked in by the master.
When he came up and asked what Rie wanted,
she said she came to catch her brother unawares, as
he was put out of the way before. As she was in the
kitchen, the boy came in and she got up and boxed
him. The plaintiff interfered, and told her to get out
if she was going to kick up a row. She asked leave
to sleep in the chair all night, and Mr. Page said he
did not know, but afterwards said she might if she
behaved herself. It was then about twelve o'clock at
sight, and she said if he was in dread he might fetch
a policeman. She said she would go about half-past
five. The boy slept that night with Page. There was
another bed, but it was not made up, and she slept in
the chair. She was to be at the railway station, two
miles off, at six.
Cross-examined—l did not offer her part of my
bed. I did not sleep in the house. I left at one
o'clock. I left her in the chair, and Mr. Page there
with her. She was then dozing. kr. Page and I were
awake. She was:in the kitchen when I came away.
The boy was gone to bed. The first time she came
she said she came for her best clothes and shawls, and
he said she should not have them. She said she
came from London to see her lawyer, Mr. Packwood.
She called him a jealous old fool, and said there was
nothing between Costins and'her, and said her brother
was a little liar. Costins came in and said "Is Mrs.
Page here ? " I said " Yes." He said, " I want to
see her." She called and asked him in. When he
came in, he said, "I want to know what this is which
you have got to say against me ? " Mr. Page inter-
fered and ordered him out of the house. Mr. Costins
hes a wife, and a number of grown-up children. It
was since Christmas she went away. She had a black
eye before she went away. Was present often
when he beat ber. Did not see him beat her with
the bell-rope. She used often to be backwards and
forwards for two or three years before she went
away. - - . _

ge-examined—When she said she was come from
London, she said she was going back the same night.
When she boxed her brother, he said he told nothing
but the truth. Before Mr. Page beat her she had
thrown things at him—tea-things. She once throw
a kettle of boiling water at him. On the occasions
that he hit her she first threw things at him.
Samuel Harris—Lived near Page when he lived at
Clare-gardens. Costins lived then a quarter of a
mile off. I lived opposite the entrance to Page's
house. Last summer I saw Costins go frequently to
Page's. The plaintiff's house had walls six feet high
aroland it. I used to see Mr. Page leave his home at
a particular time of the day. I used to see Costins
standing out in the Bath-road, and going into Page's
after he had left. That was frequently the case. I
used to wonder what he wanted there. Mrs. Page
used to come out and look about, and go back again.
Cross-examined—Could see only the roof and part
of the walls from my shop. I could see the house
from my front door. I could see his door from my
front door. I saw this last June, July, August, Sep-
tember, and up to November. Costins works at a
brick-yard which belongs to Mr. Page.
Sarah Barber—l have worked once a fortnight for
Mr. and Mrs. Page ever since their marriage. They
lived happy and comfortable for the first few years
after their marriage. For the last three years they
have looked cold on each other. When I have been
there I have seen Mr. Costins there. He used to ask
was Mr. Page within, and if he was not, then he would
ask if she was within. Sometimes he used to come
in—sometimes not. They removed to Francis-street
in December. Was at work there on the 3d January.
Costins came—Page was not at home. Mrs. Page
went to the door. He came in—into the kitchen.
She went with him. They shut the door. I was in
the brewhouse, washing. I could not sue into the
kitchen from the brewhouse. They remained to-
gether three-quarters of an hour. I went into the
kitchen. Mr. Costins was standing by the fire-place,
and Mrs. Page was sitting' by the window. I asked
" Are there any more towels to wash ?" He said,
"Are you to see what we be at ?" I said, "No, Mr.
Costins," and turned to Mrs. Page, and asked, " are
there any more towels to wash ?" Heard him accused
of stopping out too long, and leaving the house with-
out any one.

henry Rosser was employed at the theatre at
Cheltenham from December to March. Costins was
a check-taker, and he passed Mrs. Page in once or
twice without paying, saying she was a friend of his.
Saw them in the gallery, but not together. Saw them
togethbr one night after the play was over, walking
up Montpelier-street, side by side.
Cross-examined—That was his way home. I do
not know whether it was her way. Costins' daughters
are grown-up young women, and they and his wife
were frequently passed in.
Mr. CooiE, in addressing the jury, said if this case
involved merely a question of damages, he could not
suppose that the jury would, after the evidence they
had heard, give the plaintiff more than one farthing
out of the sum of 100/. at which he estimated in the
declaration the loss of the society of his wife. Were
he disposed to dwell on the disparity of years of the
plaintiff and his wife, he might quote the answer of
the young lady to the wooing of another old gentleman
of the same age as the plaintiff.—
"If from Page' you take the letter
Why that makes age,' and it won't do for me."

But be did not go on any such ground. He was in-
structed to deny most emphatically the truth of this
most disgraceful charge against Mr. Costins and
Mrs. Page, and he trusted that the jury would scout
it with scorn. The Learned Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to comment on the evidence, and to contend
that none of it, except that given by the boy, was at all
calculated to attach the slightest suspicion to the con-
duct of the defendant or Mrs. Page, and that the evidence
of the boy was unworthy of credit. The plaintiff had so
ill-treated his wife that she could no longer live with him.
She had gone to London to endeavour to live without
him. There was no pretence that Costins sent her,
or encouraged her to go there; and when the de-
fendant found she was determined to live apart from
him then he bethought himself of this action, not with
a view to damages or a divorce, but to annoy a re-
spectable neighbour, disgrace his unhappy wife,
and to prevent her from ever claiming any allowance
from him.

I S LORDSHIP summed up; and
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 101.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Baron MARTIN.)
Emanuel Hill, 27, was indicted for having, at
Bledington, on 26th June, maliciously maimed and
wounded a gelding, the property of Captain Jodrell
Leigh, R.N.
Mr. Cripps prosecuted and Mr. Powell defended
the prisoner.
The prisoner was a horse-breaker, and was em-
ployed by the prosecutor to break in the gelding in
question, which was described as a quiet, good-
tempered two-year old, and valued at 1201. In pass.,
ing a mill on the road the horse became restive, and,
after rearing for several times, fell sideways into a
ditch. The prisoner, however, retained his seat, and
got out of the ditch, but the horse remained restive,
and as he could not control it to his pleasure, he, after
several lashes with the whip, struck it twice on the
head with the butt•end, which had on it a heavy iron

handle. After the second blow the horse seemed
atupified, and blood was observed to flow• from the
.eye, upon which the prisoner dismonnted,, and ex-
Otimed that he had cut the horse's eye ottt, and he
!would rather have given fifty pounds n. it should
save happened. On examination it was fcaind that
?the ball cf the eye was broken. The wit aaesses also
aid that he requested them to say they 111.0 seen the
)torse fall into the ditch, and that tbLe accident
appened there from a thorn; but on cr cos-exansi-
ation they admitted they had the next morning
told a policeman the prisoner was not at to blame,
kand had not made a different statement, until Captain
Leigh had told them he would give 101.. to know
the truth of the matter. Neither of thQ witnesses
called had seen the horse until it was got, out of the
ditch, and the defence suggested by the ercv3s-exami-
bation was that which the prisoner bad s tated to his
master, namely, that the accident did hap pcn from a
horn in the ditch, and that he did not discover it
imtil he struck the animal on the bead in the manner
Mentioned.

At the close of the prosecutor's caste,
Mr. Baron MARTIN said that it the cane far the
prosecution were unanswered, it appeared .to him that
the evidence would not sustain an indictment for ma_
liciously wounding the horse, and that he thought the
Injury was rather an accident, occasioned by the pri-
oner's striking the horse with the butt of the whip-
hmdle when in a passion, than from any design on
his part to do it an injury. His Lordship, therefore,
directed an acquittal.

POLICE INTELLIGENC.E.
MARY LEBDIVE.

Denis Hayes, an Irish labourer, was re-examined
on the charge of having brutally attemked, and
seriously injured, two police-constables, and~wtr~; ht
consequence of the violence exercised towards them,
were for many days pronounced to be incapable of
doing duty.
It appeared from the evidence, which was gone
into at some length, that on Monday afternoon, the
4th inst., there was a great riot in Conduit-street
East, Paddington, and that on Harewood, 160, and
Trevethan, 444 D, going to the spot, they saw the
prisoner and another man engaged in a most desperate
fight, surrounded by many of their fellow-workmen.
'they (the officers) interfered in order to put an end
to the disturbance, when, after being knocked down
in the road, they were kickedi down an area fifteen or
sixteen feet' deep, and before they could get up pri-
soner jumped into the said area, and kicked and beat
both of them with all his might. They were injured
upon the body and other parts of their persons to a
considerable extent, but they at length succeeded in
securing the prisoner, whom they ultimately con-
veyed to the station-house.

The prisoner's answer to the charge was that he
Lad a row with a brother workman, and that seeing
some constables coming he leaped into the area,
thinking that he should thereby avoid getting into
trouble ; they, however, jumped down after him and
took him in charge. He denied most positively the
serious outrage imputed to him.
The MAGISTRATE sent him to hard labour in the
House of Correction for two months, being one
month each for the two assaults proved against him.
He was then locked up.