The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-22 00:00:00

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—SHREWSBURY, March 21.

CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
Samuel Brown and William Jeffreys surrendered
to take their trial upon a charge that they, with a
third man who was not in custody, being armed
with a gun and bludgeon, entered certain enclosed
land at Uffington, on the night of the sth of Jan.,
1860, for the purpose of taking game there.
Mr. Cook Evans and Mr. Chance appeared for
the prosecution ; Mr. J. J. Powell defended Brown,
and Mr. A. Hill defended Jeffreys.
It appeared from the evidence of Thomas Tom-
kins, the head gamekeeper of Lady Brinckman, of
Sundorne-castle, that on Thursday night, the sth
of Jan. last, he was out with his assistant, a man
named Sharp, watching the game. They heard
shots fired in the direction of a wood at High
Eveall, and having roused up three watchers, they
all went out on the road which leads from Eveall
to Shrewsbury, and lay concealed for several hours
behind a hedge. About 3or 4 o'clock in the morn-
ing the firing had ceased, and soon afterwards three
men came down the road, and passed about six
yards from where the keepers were. Sharp, who
had known Brown and Jeffreys from their boy-
hood, immediately recognised them. The men
passed on a few yards and went into a field. Jef-
freys took a net out of his pocket and laid it across
the gateway, and all three stood a few yards off in
the field while two dogs were beating it. The
keepers then rushed out of their hiding-place and
the three men ran off, Jeffreys having first put the
net in his pocket. The keepers followed them on the
road and soon overtook them, and asked what au-
thority they had to go into the field. Jeffreys struck
Sharp a stunning blow on the head with a bludgeon,
and knocked him down. Brown had a double-
barrelled gun, which he cocked and pointed at the
hoad keeper, telling him to stand back or he would
blow his brains out. By this time Jones, one of the
watchers, had got the third man down, and Brown
then went up to him, and pointing the gun at him
threatened to blow his brains out unless he let the
man go. Sharp said he knew all the lot, and told
Jones to loose the man, which he accordingly did,
and all the party walked together several hundred
yards on the road to Shrewsury. Tomkins, Sharp,
and Jones positively swore to the identity of both
the prisoners, and said it was a bright moonlight
night, the moon being near the full. The evidence
of Tomkins was much shaken by his admission that
he had once made a statement as to the identity of
a poacher which was shown to be incorrect, and had
afterwards endeavoured to excuse himself by saying
that he had not sworn to the party, because when
the book was given to him he did not kiss it.
Sharp's evidence was not at all shaken, and he
said he had known the two prisoners for years, and
had seen them together at 6 o'clock in the morning
about three weeks previously. The prisoner Jef-
freys was taken into custody on the Saturday after,
at the house of a man named Rutter, at Wem
Northwood, and he then said to the policeman that
he had left Shrewsbury on Thursday evening and
had come to Rutter's at six o'clock on Friday morn-
ing. Brown was taken into custody a few weeks
afterwards, and then admitted to the police that he
was on the road, but denied entering the field.
Mr. Powell addressed the jury in support of this
defence.
Mr. Hill then addressed the jury for Jeffreys, and
called several witnesses to prove an alibi. They
traced the prisoner by the railway to the house of a
poacher at Ween, 10 miles from the place in ques-
tion, where he had tea, and left it about 12 on the
Thursday night. Rutter, who was a poacher and
net-mender, said the prisoner came to his house
five miles from Wem, at a little after two o'clock
on Friday morning, and in this he was confirmed
by his brother and brother's wife. There were
several contradictions in their evidence.

Mr. Baron Bramwell analysed and summed up
the evidence with great care and minuteness, and
the jury, without hesitation, found both prisoners
guilty.
Brown then said Jeffreys was not with him.
His lordship, in passing sentence, said it was
well for Brown that he had not used his gun,
though invited by Jeffreys to do so. In considera-
tion of his using no violence his sentence would be
only six mouths' imprisonment, with hard labour.
But as to Jeffreys, his was a bad case, for he had
struck the keeper a blow which had stunned him,
and his sentence was five years' penal servitude.
As soon as sentence was passed on Jeffreys, a
gentleman who was on the bench so far forgot
himself as to applaud the, sentence by knocking on
the ground with his walking stick.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, with great warmth, con-
demned the conduct of the gentleman in question,
and said he was beyond measure surprised. His
lordship asked the offender, who seemed quite
ashamed of himself, whether he would like the
people at the other end of the court, who probably
sympathised with the prisoner, to imitate such
conduct.
Thereupon, somebody at the other end of the
court, cried " Hear, hear," which called forth a
second rebuke from the learned judge.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—TAUNTON, March 21.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron Channell.)
During the trial of a case the Court adjourned
for a quarter of an hour, and the jury were desired
to return within that time, After the Judge had
taken his seat one juryman was missing ; his name
was called, and messengers were sent after him,
but he could not be found. At length some one
stated that the chief constable had said he could
find him in five minutes. Upon this the chief con-
stable was called, and he stated that what he had
said was that he could send his men, the police-
men, out to search all the public-houses for the
man, and he had no doubt by those means he could
be found.
After a lapse of one hour 50 minutes the juror
came into court. He was asked the reason of his
absence, and he stated that he had come from home
without his breakfast, and had gone to take some
refreshment, as he had understood two hours were
allowed.
The learned Baron Channell reprimanded him for
his conduct, and fined him £2O. His lordship sub-
sequently stated that he was convinced the chief
constable had rendered the Court assistance in the
plan he had adopted.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
James Wookey was convicted of setting fire to
the house of Walker Middle, at Litton, on the Bth
of September, several persons being in the house at
the time, and judgment of death was recorded
against him,
Mr. Edwards prosecuted, and Mr. Edlin defended
the prisoner.
Edward Brewer was indicted for burglary at
Keynsham, and stealing money and jewellery.
Mr. Prideaux prosecuted, and Mr. Edwards de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was an apprentice
at Keynsham and was courting the servant of Miss
Copeland, whose house was broken open, in Oct.,
1858. Miss Copeland's house was properly locked
up; the next morning it was discovered that seve-
ral rings which had been placed on the dressing-
room table on the previous night were missing, and
it was evident that the house had been broken into
dcring the night, and that the burglar must have
used A ladder in order to effect an entry into the
house, and that he must have been acquainted with
the premises. No suspicion attached to any one;
but about 12 months after the burglary the pri-
soner went to a watchmaker's to have something
done to his watch, and he then offered some rings
for sale.
The prisoner was found guilty, and he was sen-
tenced to three years' penal servitude.
Frederick Smith was indicted for uttering a
forged bill of exchange for £lO at Bath on the
16th September.
Mr. Saunders prosecuted."
It appeared that the prisoner went to the shop
of John Pearce, and said he had a bill of exchange
for £lO which was accepted by his brother, John
Smith, and he wished to have some goods for it.
Mr. Pearce, knowing John Smith, gave the pri-
soner some goods which he wished to purchase, and
also gave him the rest of the amount in money.
The bill was subsequently found to be forged. The
prisoner was apprehended in Bristol, and he then
said e was very sorry, but he had been driven to
it by d.s.stress.
The prisoner now said he was in great distress.
He had a large family and could not obtain em-
ployment. They were all starving.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of uttering.
The prosecutor hoped the Court would be merci-
ful.
Mr. Baron Martin said that the prisoner was a
man of education and must have known that some
years ago mit Au Clailo gas iuyariabl7 puni§hed,