The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-01 00:00:00

._ • _
r .` .

o`r•f~

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, July 31.
CROWN SIDE.
Mr. Ed win James, Q.C., has been trying prisoners
to-day in the Third Court, and this will materially
expedite the business of the assize. It is expected
that the criminal business will be concluded to-day,
and Mr. Justice Blackburn will then take the com-
mon cases in their order.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
John Clark, 41, was charged with forging an
order for the delivery of -goods and money, with
intend to defraud.
Mr. Russell prosecuted ; Mr. Ribton was counsel
for the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner
had been for many years in the army, and that he
was discharged with an exceedingly good character
and a pension of 2s. a day. He subsequently ob-
tained a situation as warder at the Chatham con-
vict prison, and the offence imputed to him was
committed while he was holding that office. It
seemed that among the prisoners was a man named
Jackson, who had been sentenced to penal servitude
for felony, and whose wife resided at Carmarthen,
and it was alleged that the prisoner, being acquainted
with this fact, had written a letter to the wife in
the name of her husband, requesting her to send him
two sovereigns and half a poundof eavendish tobacco
in a parcel addressed to some person at Chatham,
and the letter, also stated that if the money was
sent it would enable him to obtain many comforts
in the prison which he would otherwise be deprived
of. The poor woman, it appeared, was unable to
raise the required amount, but she sent ss. The
matter, however, came to the knowledge of the
governor of the prison, and the prisoner was at
once discharged from his office of warder, and sub-
sequently committed for trial upon the present
charge.
Mr. Ribton made a very energetic address to the
jury on behalf of the prisoner, and especially urged
upon them his good character and long service in
the army as grounds for disbelieving that he would
be guilty of such an offence as the one imputed to
him. He also contended that the probability was
the prisoner might have intended to serve the con-
vict Jackson, and that, although in doing; so he had
undoubtedly infringed the gaol regniations, he had
been sufficiently punished by the loss of his ap-
pointment.
The jury, after considerable deliberation, returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
(Before Mr. James, Q.C.)
Walter Dunn, 28, and George Barrett, 26, two
soldiers, were harged with stealing a watch and
chain, the property of Charles Saunders.
Mr. F. J. Smith conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that the prosecutor was a sergeant
in the 53d Regiment, stationed at Chatham, and
the prisoners are both privates in the same regi-
ment. On the 6th of July the sergeant went out to
attend parade, leaving a watch and chain in a knap-
sack in his room, and upon his return he found that
the watch and chain had been stolen. The prisoner
Barrett had access to the room, and it appeared that
on the same afternoon the watch was stolen the two
prisoners went to a publichouse called the Royal
Oak, at Chatham, and Barrett sold the watch to
Mr. Hughes, the landlord, for 10s., and when he
gave him the money the other prisoner (Dunn) said
to him, " Come, let's have none of your nonsense ;
.let me have my share ;" and Barrett then gave
him ss.
Mr. James told the witness Hughes that he had
acted very improperly in purchasing such articles
of two soldiers. The facility of getting rid of stolen
property was very likely to encourage them to rob
their officers and other persons, and he advised him
to be cautious in future, or he would get into
trouble, and he said that on the present occasion be
should certainly not allow him his expenses.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Smith informed the Court that there was a
second indictment against the prisoner Dunn for
another robbery, committed on the same day as the
former one. He was likewise charged with com-
mitting a most violent assault upon one of the
county constabulary, named Jobling, at the time
of his takilig him into custody. He had also, it
appeared, very recently been sentenced to six
weeks' imprisonment for picking pockets.
Mr. James, in passing sentence, said that he had
tried eight or nine prisoners, and the greater por-
tion of them were soldiers in the Queen's service
and receiving her pay, and it was really disgrace-
ful to find men in this position guilty of such
offences, and it was absolutely necessary that they
should be punished with severity, He then ordered
Barrett to be kept to hard labour for 18 months,
and. Dunn to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour
for three months upon the first indictment, and to
undergo penal servitude for three years upon the
I other.

Mr. Smith said he was informed by Mr. Everest,
the superintendent of police stationed at Chatham,
that the constable, Jobling, was severely injured in
apprehending Dunn, who made a violent resistance,
and in the course of the struggle broke two of the
constable's fingers. lie therefore applied to the
Court to exercise the power given by the statute of
oldering the constable to receive a reward.
Mr. James said he thought it was a case in which
this should be done, and he directed that the con-
stable should receive a gratuity of .£5.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-SIIREWSBURY, July 3

CROWN COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
Andrew H. Corder, 27, labourer, was Charged
with feloniously forging a receipt to a Post-office
money order for £2, with intent to defraud, on the
6th of February, 1860, at Bridgnorth.
Mr. W. H. Cooke prosecuted ; Mr. Cook Evans
defended the prisoner.
It appeared that on the 6th of February, 1860, a
money order for £2, signed " Joseph Chandler,"
was presented at the post-office, Bridgnorth ; and
as an advice had been received from Tunbridge for
the payment of such a sum to " Joseph Chandler,"
the money was paid, but the person who paid it
could not say to whom she paid it, whether man or
woman. A-Mr. Rodgers, of Tunbridge, said he sent
the order in question, addressed to his brother-in-
law, Joseph Chandler, who lived at Bridgnorth, in
answer to a letter of the 31st January, which pur-
ported to come from his brother-in-law, and requested
that the money order might be sent to him at No.
15, Waterside, Bridgnorth. He received no acknow-
ledgment of the order, and wrote two other letters
to the same address, and then received a letter with-
out a date, in the same handwriting, and signed
" Joseph Chandler," acknowledging the receipt of
the money order and two letters, and promising to
repay the money. He also received another
letter, dated the 3d of March, to the same pur-
port. In order to connect the prisoner with the
forgery, some evidence was given by a young lady,
of the Plough, at Ludlow, who said she thought
the letters were prisoner's handwriting, and
also that the letters " Jos" in the signature to
the receipt were very like his; and Joseph
Chandler gave similar evidence. Chandler also
stated that he lived at Whitbourne-place, Bridg-
north, and last Christmas he employed the prisoner
who worked for him and lived in his house, to write
a letter to his brother-in-law, Mr. Rogers, of Tun-
bridge, which letter Rogers swore he never received.
A man named Cookson, who worked with prisoner,
swore that in the early part of the year the pri-
soner told hini that a letter was coming for him,
addressed to " Joseph Chandler, No. 15, Water-
side, Bridgnorth," and that three letters did come
to him so addressed, and that he gave all three let-
ters to the prisoner. On March 25th the prisoner
had been employed by Chandler to write a letter to
Mr. Rogers to say he was coming to attend his
mother's funeral, and when Chandler came back
from that visit he found that the prisoner had left
his service without notice, and had come to Shrews-
bury, where he was taken into custody on the 31st
of March.

Mr. C. Evans addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and contended that there was no evidence of utter-
ing, and that the forgery was not proved, unless
the Jury believed the evidence of Cookson, which
he contended was contradicted by a portion of
Chandler's evidence.

The jury found the prisoner
i guilty, and a previ-
ous conviction for larceny n 1863 was proved
against him.

Mr. Justice Hill said he had great doubt whether
he ought not to sentence the prisoner to penal ser-
vitude ;. but in the hope that he would take warn-
ing, his lordship sentenced him to one year's im-
prisonment with hard labour.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Wm. Brindley, cnginedriver, surrendered to take
his trial upon a charge of manslaughter, in causing
the death of John Jones on May 2, 1860.
Mr. Boughey and Mr. 11. James prosecuted, and
Mr. P. WMahon defended the prisoner. •
The prisoner was an enginedriver in the em-
ploy of the London and North-Western Rail-
way Company, and the charge against him was
that he had caused the death of the deceased by
his gross negligence in not attending to a danger
signal and stopping the train which lie was driving
on the morning of the 2d of May last. IL appeared
that on the day in question the prisoner was the
driver of a passenger train, which left Shrewsbury
for Crewe at 6 45 a.m., and ought to have arrived
at the Whitworth station, on the Crewe line, at
7 30. At 715 on that morning a goods train from
Crewe to Shrewsbury reached Whitworth, and, it
being a single line only, the driver of the goods
train ought to have passed from the main line on to
a siding, to allow the passenger train to pass ; but,
instead of doing that, he remained on the line for
some minutes. The porter in charge of the signals