The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-05 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GIIILDFORD, Arc 4.
Francis Ward, a surgeon practising at Streatham, sot,
rendered to take his trial upon a charge of manslaughter.
Mr. Knapp conducted the prosecution. Sergeant Bal-
lantine was Fpecial ly retained, with Mr. Le Breton, for the
defence.

It appeared that the deceased wag a young woman,
named Elizabeth Hampshire, and that being in the
(early way, Mr. Ward was called in to attend upon
Ler, and he did so down to the delivery. It was alleged
un the part of the prosecution that he had acted
unskilfully during the operation, and that the death of the
deceased resulted from that unskilfulness.. The nature of
the inquiry of course precludes any details befog entered
into, but in the course of the evidence it appeared to be
established that the case was one of a very peculiar character,
and that the unfortunate result might reasonably he
witheut the slightest culpable
at-
tributed at most to a mistake,
negligence on the part of the defendant; and upon this sup-
position the learned judge intimated that there was Rut
sufficient evidence to go to the jury, and therefore directed
an acquittal.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said he hal a hest of wi•nesses
in attendance to testify to the professional skill of Mr.
Ward, and also to the kindness and humanity which he
invariably exhibited towards hi 3 patients.
Mr. Baron Bramwell expr. ssed himself satisfied with the
result that hail been arrived at; and said he was of opinion
that Mr. Ward left the court with a great deal higher repu-
tation than many medical men who had come before him in
the cantle of his professional ecperienee.
Cornelius Herrington' 41, an Irish labourer, was
chargers with the manslaughter of Daniel Herringtcn.
Mr.IW. M. Best coaducted the prosecution.
It appeared that the deceased was the prisoner's cousin,
and that he and some other men were employed at a job in
Bermondsey. On the day the occurrence took place the
deceased and some of his fellow-labourers were going to
their work, when they met the prisoner, who asked them to
treat him, and they all went into a beer-shop, and had some
beer, and the prisoner wanted more • and when the other said
they would not have more, be d to be angry. The
deceased then proceeded to his workap'areand it appeared that
a seeffidd had been erected, against which there ladder,
and when the deceased acnedsomeo'tl. other men was a
had gone upon
the scaffold and commend their
eine downwork,t ahepud risoner shook
the ladder and told them to come
have more
beer. it appeared that by this proceaing the ladder
was displaced, and the deceased, or
some of his com-
panions went down, and, as they th
Qught-, secured •
it, and then retUrned to their work. The
Pr -
•

THE

saner, mho bad been drink;n7, and who appea-ed
to have worked himself up into a state or considerable ex-
citement, then again seized the lad4er, and comet • ced
shaking it violently, t:nd the consequence was, th the
v,11••l of the se itfolding giive way, and the deceased was
pr,:cipitated to the graund, and received injuries of chick
he died, and another man was also severely injare I.
The prisoncr, in his dtlence, at tempted to rock out that
the unfortunate occurrence was the reult of ace ent.
The jury, however, without any hesitation, returned a
verdict of guilty,

Sentence was postponed.
William Barker, the farmer who was convicted at Maid
s'onc of the offence of arson under very peculiar circum-
stances, was brought up for judgment at the close of the
assizes, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and
hard labour.
The tusiness. disposed of on the Civil Side yesterday was
utterly devoid of interest.

NORTHERN CHU:TU.—NEWCASTLE, AUG. 3.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Thlore Lord Chief Baron Pollock.)
GRAHAM V. THE SUNDERLAND DOCK COMPANY.
Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Cleasby
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Temple, Q.C., Mr.
Il indmarsh, and Mr. Simon for the defendants.
Mr. Cie a.by opened the pleadings. The p!aint!ff was Mr.
Edmund Graham, of Newcastle, shipowner; mai the de-
fendants the Sunderland Dock Company. The plaintiff
alleged that it was the ditty of the defendants to buoy Hen-
don Rock, and to replace such buoy in the event of its being
carried away, and that in consequence of their neglect of
ibis duty the vessel of the plaintiff sustained serious damage,
to recover for which the action was brought,
Mr. Attie; ton stated the case. The plaintiff brought this
action to recover dameges sustained by his vessel, the Ellen
Dale, by reason of ;Le said vessel striking on the Ilendon
Rock. The buoy, it appeared, was liable to be carried away
by northern and eastern gales; but it oily required tranquil-
lity of weather t, enable the company ta replace the buoy on
its being wasaed away. The alleged mischief to plaintiff s
vessel, in consequence of there being no buoy on this rock,
took place on the 17th of March last. The buoy had been
washed away somewhere about the ;oilman of lee 37, and had
not been replaced, 89 that for tl.e whole intervening period
the company would appear to have been neglecting their
duty. The Ellen Dale was a vessel of about 900 tons,
new measurement, and at the time in question was under
charter to convey a Cargo of coals to Calcutta. She took in,
at Sunderland, a cargo of 1,200 tons; on the 17th of March,
between forsr and five o'cloek, she was towed out of the
southern entrance of the dock, with a view to proceed
upon her.voyage. She had on board a river pil'rt, named
Jobline. The steam tug Bee towed the Ellen Dale out to a
considerable distance outside Hendon Rock, and then cast
off, and returned, taking back Jobling, the pilot, and the
captain, who went on shore in search of some missing men,
so that the vessel was left in charge of the North Sea pilot.
Tire latter gave the order to the mate to set the sails and get
up the anchors. There was at the time a light breeze, but
it afterwards fell, and there was an entire absence of wind.
The pilot bad, previously to the fall of the wind, given
orders to steer fir the centre buoy, which was a little further
out. When the wind fell the vessel was outside Ilendon
Rock, but owing to the smoke of the steamers, and the
hazy state of the atmosphere, it became necessary to look
for the buoy, and the pilot then found :that there was no
buoy on the rock, and the vessel afterwards gratually drifted
towards the rock, upon which she eveetually struck.
Soundings were then taken, and it was found that there
were fourteen fathoms from stern and bow, but the vessel
had struck about amidships. In a short tiine the
vessel struck with great violence, and immediately
it was fount that she was making water at the rapid rate of
eight or nine inches in an hour. The pumps were conse-
quently set to work, and the vessel was ultimately brought
back to the dock, when it was found that she had sustained
considerable damage, to repair which it was found necessary
to unload the cargo, and it was to recover damages for the
cost entailed in repairing the vessel, together with the
expense of unloading, demurrage, and other incidental ex-
penses incurred in consequence of the accident, that the
action was brought. Tire entire damage amounted to about
2,0001.
Witnesses were called on both sides. On the part of the
defendants, it was sought to be established that the vessel
ought, in the first instance, to have been taken much farther
out to sea, and that, afterwards, the anchors should have
been let go when she was found to be drifting. It was
sought to be shown that, instead of that she was under no
control, and allowed to drift at her own pleasure. Witnesses
were also called to prove that it was well known to all the -
pilots that there was no buoy at Hendon Reck.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, at the
same time, however, expressing a hope that toe company
would pa.t up the buoy, which was very muck wanted.
DRUMMOND T. THE NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.

The plaintiff is a fruiterer and poulterer, residing at
Nirr.h Shields; and this was a writ of inquiry to assess
damages for injuries which he sustained by accident on the
defendants' lige, at Pelaw Main, on the 16th of December.
Verdict for XlOO.

This concluded the business of the assizes; and the court
rose shortly befcro five o'clock.

NORTH WALE-3 CIRCUIT.--CHESTER, AUG. 4.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
THE MURDER AT LYME HANDLEY.
Henry Bloomfield, 33, farmer, was indicted for having
wilfully murdered his wife, Ann Bloomfield, at Lyme
Handley', on the 22nd of Aprilast.
On the charge being read over to the prisoner, he pleaded
not guilty in a loud voice, and immediately burst into tears.
Mr. Brushficld, medical superintendent of the Chester
Lunatic Asylum, in reply to a question from his lordship,
said the prisoner had been confined as a lunatic since the
commission of the offence, and he believed he was not in a
fit state to plead.
His Lordship having consulted with Mr. Justice Crowder,
ordered the prisoner's plea to be struck out, and a jury
sworn to try whether the prisoner was in a fit state to
plead and take his trial.
The jury having been empannelled,
Mr. Brandt (who with Mr. H. Lloyd, appeared for the
prosecution) then called
Mr. Brushfield, medical superintendent of the Lunatic
Asylum, who deposed that frAn the 10th of May last he had
had. the prisoner under 1,1, charge. He was not capable of
understanding in what position he was placed with respect
to the punishment for the crime he had committed. He was
still acting- under a delusion, believing that the act he had
performed was a righteous one; that his wife had been un-
faithful to him; that he was under tlt sped,' grace of God,
and he was wishful of being executed that he might get out
of the vorld, and pleaded guilty to tl,e charm, believing that
he was innocent, but that by so pleading he mig hi he hanged.
On hearing this evidence his lordship briefly addrewd
the jury, who brought in a verdict " thit the prisoner is in-
sane and unfit to plead and take his trial."
His Lordship then ordered, under the authority of 39 and
40 Geo. 111., that the prisoner should be kept in strict cus-
tody during her Majesty's pleasur...
The certificate under which the prisoner has been brought
to take his trial, certifying he was in a fit stale, had been
obtained during the temporary abserce of Mr. Bruslifield,
the medical superintendent, from his assistant, Mr. Lewis,
awl his lordship ecnmred the solicitors for the prosecution
s,iverely for bringing the ,rrisoner up, and ordered costs to
be disallowed.
The prisoner, who had been crying bitterly the whale time
he remained in court, was then removed.
THE QUEEN V. TODD.
Detrirg the absence of the jury in the last cats this pri-
soner, who was on Saturday convicted of unlawfully
wounding Mr. G. T. Gibson, was bronchi up for judgment.
llis Lordship olye7ved that all hough the state of the pri-
sow,r's mind was not such as to athird an answer to the
charee, altlunten reduced by the finding of the jury from
felony to a misdemeanour, yet frun inquiry it appeared that
the condilon of his mind and his inability to bear severe
punishment rendered some mi!igation proper. llis Lord-
ship then, :Vdressing the prisoner, said,—Considering the
length of time that you have al7eady heel in prison, the
sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for six
calendar months.
Mr. Baron Martin !if. this afternoon for Carlisle, to open
the Co:nmission, the Chief Baron hating still two causes to
by.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MONMOUTH, AUG. 4.
Mr. Ji:s ice Byles arrived in this town yesterilay, and
pet3ell the commission fir the c3unty of Monmouth, with
the usual formalities. llis Lordship afterwards attended
Divine service at St. Mary's. Mr. Justice Hill, who had
been detained at - Hereftird, arrived in the coarse of the
evening. The busipc:s cf the assizes began this morning at
10 o'cicck, Mr. Jostice Hilt presiding. in the Civil Court,
and Mr. Justice Bytes in the Criminal Court. The cause-
list contains an entry cf five causes, two of which are marked
for special juries.
The calendar contains a li<t 0f29 prisoners, three of whom
arc charged with cbild murder. The other offeuces charged
are of au ordinary description.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill and a Common Jury.).
REES AND OTHERS V. MARSH.

Mr. Scotland and Mr. Granville Somerset appeared for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Smythies for the defendant.
TDe plaintiffs in this action were three parties who were
jointly interested in a house called Cwm Dws, in the parish
of Mynnyddsllyn, near Newport, and they brought the pre-
sent action to (yet the defendant, who had been for some
years is the occupation of four rooms and part of the garden
under peaple who rented the premises of the plaintiffs. It
appeared the defer;dant bad been let blip_ posses ion of his
rooms by a tenant named George, who was succeeded on
thetb of June, 1855, by another tenant, named Phillips,
whnook the house for three years certain. The defendant
continued to occupy under Phillips at a rent of £6 a tear,
which he paid partly in money, but partly in labour.
In November. 1857, Phillips gave up possession, but the
defendant refused to leave ; on the 10th of May, 1858, one
of the plaintiffs, named Evans, who said he bad the
management of the property for the joint tenants, went on
the premises, accotnpanied by Mr. Graham, the land-agent,
and made a formal demand of possession, but the de-
kndant refused to leave, alleging that he had received no
notice to quit. lie, however, expressed his readiness to go
as soan as he could get another place, provided the plaintiffs
would pay him for the crops then in the garden. He, how-
ever, wished t, be allowed to remain, saying ke would pay
hetlglit still
o on
t
'he same rent as be had paid to Phillips; but he was told
be ru
action
'tgo
was
; and,
;as continuedol of
fo
June,hold over,phill
Phillips's
present he 18
terms having ended on the 8!11 of June.
Mr. Smythies catled t",e defendant, who stated 1
that in the
month of March Ilst Lila ants, one of the plaintiffs and
joint tenants, called upon him, and agreed
to let him the
rooms and part of the gardens, from the Ist of Januar • at
£5 a-year ; and thin evidence was corroborated by 3'
a woman
who was his housekeeper.
Mr. Justice Hill, in summing up the evidence to the jury,
said the single question for tio.ir decision was whether
thl rooms had been let by Edwards to the defendant, as he
had stated; and ob erved that if that was realty the case it
was extraordinary the defendant had nut set np that defence
when possession was demanded t f him in Mar.
The jury, after a few minutes' e€D9ideration, found a ver-
dict for the