The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-12 00:00:00

CHARGE OF Ben.

A lahonring man named James Harrison, was in-
dicted for committing a rape upon the person cf Mary
Southeran, a married woman, and the mo.her of six
children.

Mr. Ribton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Sleigh defended the prisoner.
From the evidence it appeared that the prosecutrix
was prevent on the Sunday, the 21st of February,
amongst other persons at a house in LittlePmt•
land-stree`, on the occasion of a christening. She arrived
at the house about one o'clock and remained there till
late at night. Shortly after ',lna o'clock she was taken
unwell and retired into the adjoining room (the pri-
soner's) where there was a bed and laid down.
At ten o'cl •olt she was awakened by the prisoner
entering she room. He locked the door and undressed
himself, then got into bed, and in spite of all resistance
and cries be accomplished his purpose. There were
other persons in the next rocm. She imme-
diately left the house and went in search of a po-
liceman ; and on finding one she informed hire
that she had been violently assaulted, and wished him
to .a.ie the man into ous ody. On the p )liceman enter•
ing the house in Little Portland-street, the prosecutrix
entered a room, and pointed out the prisoner as the man
who had assault-d her. The policeman told the prisoner
that he must go to the station-house on a charge of
committing an assault upon the woman. He refused,
and said he was not to blame, and that he would not
go. A violent struggle took place, arid after a great
deal of trouble he was taken into custody.
In cross examination by Mr. Sleigh, the prosecu-
trix said she was awoke by the roan getting into
bed. She bad taken a little gin, but was not intoxi-
cated. She took the spirits as a remedy fcr spasms.
Mr. H. Raymond, surgeon to the Marylebone police
force, stated that on the Monday following the day of
the assault the prosecutrix was brought to him by order
of Mr. Broughton, the Magistrate, and, in accordance
with directions, he made an examination of her person,
being Previously told she was a married woman. He
found no marks of violence whatever on her person, but
he thought that the offence with which the prisoner was
charged might have been committed without leaving
marks of viohnee.
In answer to questions from Mr. Sleigh the witness
said that even if the resistance had been offered such as
the prosecutrix described still the offence might have
been committed without leaving marks of violence.
Mr. Sleigh addressed the jury for the prisoner and
contended that as the evidence of the prosecutrix was
ndt corroborated it ought to be received with
great caution, and that if the woman had made the resist-
ance that she laid she had it was exceedingly unlikely
that it should not have been heard by the other parties
wbo were in the adjoining room.
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up the evidence, said
the offence with which the prisoner stood charged with
was one of the most heinous offences known to the law,
and therefore they should be perfectly satisfied with the
evidence before they found the prim ner guilty. There was
a discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecutrix which
they could not have failed to have observed. In her
examination in chief she said at ten o'clock on the even-
int; in question she was awoke by the prisoner entering
the and locking the door, and in her cross-exami-
nation room
tionsa e said she was awoke by finding the prisoner in
bed with her. It would be for them (the jury) to recon-
cile these two statements.
The jury, af-er a brief consultation, returned a ver-
dict of not guilty.

~~~

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
r,,RGERY.
Alfred Grantote, a barrister's.clerk, WAS indicted for
forgery.
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
Mr. Baron Martin, in passing sentence, said the pri-
soner had pleaded guilty to an Offence Which was corn-
n)itted under eircurnstancPs most indefensible. The
pos.l •tlon which he bad htld was of i:eelf guarantee
that he wag possessed of c•insiderable intelligence.
Having formerly fulfilled the Ole, of clerk to
Mr. Barnard, a barrister, he hail, after leaving the situa-
tion, called upon that gentleman's bankers and obtained
a blank cheque book, and from December to March he
had drawn not less than five bills of rxehange, and
forged the prosecutor's signature thereto. Tb,3 offence
was one of such an aggravated description that he should
fail in his duty did he not pass a severe sentence, and he
should, therefore, sentence him to 10 years' penal servi.
tu le.