The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-28 00:00:00

ASSIZE. INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, July 27.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
Frederick Fereday, 23, was charged with stab-
bing and wounding James Bullock on the 24th of
April, 1859, at Upper Penn, with intent to murder
him, and also with intent to do him some grievous
bodily harm.
Mr. P. M'Mahon appeared for the prosecution ;
Mr. R. Kettle and Mr. Young defended the prisoner.
This was an extraordinary case, not merely from
the severity of the wound inflicted on the prose-
cutor, but from the fact which it disclosed, that the

prosecutor, who was a policeman at Wolverhampton
had trained and used a bull-mastiff for the purpose
of knocking down and catching thieves and others
whom he desired to arrest. According to the state-
ment of the prosecutor, James Bullock, he saw the
prisoner, who appeared to be a respectable young,
man, in company with a young woman, at a pub-
lichouse in the neighbourhood of Wolverhampton
called the Rose and Crown. They came out of the
publichouse, and as it was past 12 o'clock at night
the policeman told them to go home, and walked
away. The policeman in a few minutes came back
on his beat and saw the prisoner and the young
woman still in the road, and said to them, " Fred,
it is time for you to be at Sedgeley, and for you, my
lady, to be at Wolverhampton." The policeman
then turned round, and the prisoner without more
ado stabbed hint In the small of the back, near the
spine, and inflicted a wound nearly three inches in
depth, which penetrated the kidneys. The police-
man then endeavoured to take the prisoner into
custody, and a struggle ensued, in the course of
which the prisoner got away towards the house of
a man named Raybould, which was by the road-
side. The policeman had with him a powerful bull-
mastiff dog, which he said was muzzled, and which
had been trained to catch thieves and others, not
by biting them, but by running between their legs
and knocking them down, and so detaining them
till his master came and secured them. When the

prisoner got away the policeman set his dog upon
him, and the animal, true to his instinct, ran after
the prisoner and got him on the ground, and while
there worried him and took up his leg in his mouth
and shook it. This was clearly proved by Raybould
and his wife, who were roused from their beds by
the disturbance, and saw the occurrence from their
window.. The policeman again went up to the pri-
soner, and another struggle ensued, in the course of
which the prisoner slabbed the policeman near the
region of the heart, but, fortunately, the knife
struck the bone and did no injury. Raybould
then came to the policeman's assistance, and the
prisoner was secured. There was no doubt that the
prisoner had stabbed the policeman with a knife,
which was found next morning near the scene of
the encounter, and that the wound inflicted in the
policeman's loins was a very dangerous one ; the
main question whether it was inflicted, as the po-
liceman stated, without adequate provocation, or
whether, as the prisoner suggested, it was not in-
flicted while the prisoner was lying on the ground,
and was being attacked by the policeman and his
dog. The policeman said his dog was muzzled,
and he produced the animal in court ; but the as-
pect of the brute, though he was still muzzled, ex-
cited anything but sympathy in his favour.
Mr. R. Kettle contended that the prisoner had
acted entirely on the defensive, and he called the
young woman who had been with him, and she
stated that the policeman had knocked the prisoner
down several times before the blow in question was
struck. According to her evidence the conduct of
the policeman had been exceedingly aggravating
and improper, which she attributed to her rejection
of overtures which he had made to herself. Mrs.
Raybould said that when she saw the dog in her
house, when the prisoner was taken into custody,
the dog was without a muzzle, and it was proved
by one of the warders of Stafford Gaol, that a few
days after the prisoner was received into custody
he complained of pains in his leg from the bite of a
dog, for which the surgeon ordered a poultice.
Mr. Hughes, the surgoon to the gaol, said he did
not recollect ordering a poultice, but he had no
doubt that the prisoner had the scars of a dog's
bite on his leg, and corresponding holes in the
leather of his boot.
Mr. Justice Willes, in summing up the evidence,
condemned in strong terms the grossly illegal prac-
tice of using a dog as had been done in this case.
In no country where there was a spark of humanity
or independence could such a practice be tolerated.
It could in no way be justified, and it could only be
excused in the policeman upon the ground that he
knew no better, and that his conduct had
not come under the notice of his superiors.
There had been cases where bloodhounds
had been set upon a track of blood, but
to make use of a dog to arrest a man did not
admit of palliation. A man had discretion, and the
law had a hold upon him ; but a brute had no dis-
cretion, and the law could have no hold upon him.
His lordship then left it to the jury to say, upon
the evidence, whether the prisoner had stabbed the
policeman, and, if so, whether it had been done with
intent to do him grievous bodily harm, or under
such circumstances of provocation as did away with
the felony, and reduced the act to an unlawful
wounding.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding
with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Justice Willes said the verdict of the jury
involved a finding that the prisoner had been guilty
of a great moral aggravation of his crime, by
endeavouring to sustain his defence by perjured
evidence. The offence was a most serious one, and
it was necessary to make an example of the pri-
soner, as a warning to others, and for the protec-
tion of the lives and limbs of her Majesty's subjects.
The sentence was that the prisoner be kept in
penal servitude for six years.
Samuel Egerton surrendered to take his trial
upon a charge that he, being the bailee of 16s. 2d.,
the moneys of Anna Beard, feloniously converted
the same to his own use. He was also charged with
embezzling the same money, and there were counts
which laid the money as the property of John Beard.
Mr. M'Mahon appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.l
G. Browne defended the prisoner.
Mr. M'Mahon, in opening the case, stated that
the prisoner was a County Court debt collector at
Wolverhampton, and in November last was engaged
by the prosecutrix, who was in a small way of busi-
ness there, to recover some debts for her, upon the
terms of her paying him a certain commission on
all he collected. He proceeded against several of the
debtors in the County Court, and received in all
upwards of £B, but refused to pay her any part of
it, on the pretence that she was a married woman,
and that the money belonged to her husband. The
prosecutrix had since obtained a protection order
against her husband under the Divorce Act, and, in
order to guard against the defence that the money
belonged to him, there were counts in the indict-
ment which laid the money as the property of the
husband.
Mr. Justice Willes, upon the opening, said he
thought the first count could not be supported, as
no specific money had been received by the prisoner
to be handed over in specie to his employer ; nor
did he think the prisoner was the clerk or servant
of the prosecutrix, who could be convicted of em-
bezzlement.
His Lordship consulted Mr. Justice Byles, and,
as that learned judge concurred in opinion with
him upon both points, he directed an acquittal.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles)
Isaac Birch Arden, 38, was charged with com-
mittine, an unnatural offence on the 10th of April,
1859, at Burton-upon-Trent.
Mr. Scotland appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
Motteram defended the prisoner.
The prisoner was a respectable-looking man, and
had been schoolmaster in the workhouse at Burton,
where the offence was committed. lle had pre-
viously been in the army in India. The case
against him was clearly proved, and showed a
frightful degree of depravity, which ought to place
the guardians of such establishments on their guard.
The jury found him guilty.
Mr. Justice Byles said he never knew such a
charge to be proved by such invincible evidence.
His Lordship ordered sentence of death to be
recorded.
William Shelroke, 46, a pauper in the Wolver-
hampton Workhouse, was charged with a similar
offence.
The jury fouud him guilty only of the attempt.
There was a second charge against the prisoner,
which was not gone into.
This case, like the last, showed a shocking degree
of corruption prevailing among the boys in the
workhouse.
George Vaughan surrendered to take his trial
upon a charge of administering to Mary Gregory a
certain destructive and noxious drug called cantha-
rides, with intent to murder, also with intent to do
grievous bodily harm, on the 6th of April, 1859, at
Willenhall.
Mr. Prichard appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
G. Browne defended the prisoner.
It appeared the prosecutrix was a married wo-
man, but of loose character, living separate from
her husband. On the evening of the 6th of April
the prisoner went to her house, and produced a
small bottle containing some rum, and asked her to
drink some out of the bottle. The prosecutrix
would not drink from the bottle, but`got a glass and
drank some of the rum. She then took portions of
a second glass and said it was very hot, and drank
some ginger beer which she had in the house and
kept for the purpose of sale. The prisoner threw
the remainder of the rum in the glass into the ashes.
An improper intimacy then took place between the
prosecutrix and the prisoner, and in the course of
the night the woman was taken ill with a burning

pain in the throat and stomach, &c. A: doctor was
sent for, and from the symptoms he at once formed
an opinion that she had taken cantharides. This
Opinion was confirmed by an examination of the
wineglass, in which he found severals grains of that
drug.. The prisoner also appeared to have taken
some ; at least he also complained to the doctor of
pains in his stomach, and sent for some castor oil.
The prosecutrix soon recovered, but 'she made no
charge against the prisoner, until she was called
upon by the police. The surgeon said that three
grains of the drug was a full dose, when it was used
medicinally, as a stimulant and irritant, and he '
added that the drug in question was sometimes used
for its aphrodisiac qualities to excite the passions.
At the close of the case,
Mr. G. Browne submitted that there was no evi-
dence that the prisoner had any felonious intent.
Mr. Justice Byles said he did not think there was
any evidence of the intent to murder ;_ and there
was but little evidence of the intent to do grievous
bodily harm, seeing that the prisoner had taken
some of the mixture himself, and so made himself
ill. His lordship said he would not withdraw the
case from the jury, but he asked them whether they
wished to hear the prisoner's counsel.

The jury said they were satisfied that there was
no case against the prisoner, and found him not
guilty.
Mr. Justice Byles said he hoped what had oc-
curred would be a warning to the prisoner, and
ordered him to be discharged.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-DURHAM, July 25.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Watson.)

George Benning, 18, was indicted for feloniously
shooting at 'Margaret Hodgson with intent to mur-
der her, at Southwick, on the 21st of February
last.

Mr. Davison prosecuted, and Mr. Seymour de,
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutrix (an exceedingly
prepossessing and good-looking girl) had been
courted for about ten months by the prisoner, when
they had a quarrel, and she told him she would have
no more to do with him. The prisoner got exceed-
ingly excited, and protested that no other man
should keep company with her. He went that day
to a photographist and got his likeness taken, and
while doing so he had a pistol in his hand, and was
asked what he carried that for by the photo-
graphist. He replied, " for his amusement." He
went next morning to see the prosecutrix, and
asked her to look at his portrait. She sat down in
a chair in a room to do so, and the prisoner left the
room for a momant, as suggested, to load and pre-
pare his pistol. On his return the prosecutrix
rose, but be told her to stop awhile, and pushed her
down again on the seat. She sat with her head down
looking at the portrait, when she suddenly heard a
loud report and felt stunned by a blow on the
head. She rose up and ran out of the room,
and the prisoner absconded. The prosecutrix
was found bleeding from a gun-shot wound on the
head, and a surgeon was sent for, who then ab-
stracted four large shots from the scalp, and subse-
quently 21 shots. Some of these were flattened by
the skull, and the skull itself was ploughed and
furrowed by the shot as it had glanced off. A few
days afterwards the prisoner was taken into cus-
tody, and a pistol was found at the house where he
had taken refuge. On being taken into custody
he told the police "he wished he had shot her
dead, and he could die happy," and when asked
where the pistol was he said it was in hell. While
' giving her evidence the prosecutrix fainted on
seeing the prisoner. Her forehead was much
scarred by the shot. She appeared unwilling to
press the case against the prisoner, and admitted
that she had since the occurrence called at his
father's and wished to see him. She could not re-
collect whether she had said it was her own fault
that the pistol went off. The prisoner was subject
to fits, and she had seen him in one. _ _

The prosecutrix was obliged to be carried out
after her cross-examination, and the prisoner then
fell into strong convulsions in the dock.
It was urged for him that he was labouring
under a fit of jealousy ; that he had no intention to
injure the prosecutrix or he would have loaded the
pistol with a bullet ; and that the fits to which he
was subject had injured his mind so as scarcely to
leave him a responsible agent.
His Lorlship having summed up the evidence,
The jury found him guilty of shooting with
intent to murder. Sentence deferred.

JULY 26.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Watson.)
John Shafto Wilthew, aged 55, was indicted for
the wilful murder of his wife, Susannah Wilthew,
at Jarrow, on the 19th of this July.
The Hon. A. Liddell and Mr. Robinson Fowler
appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Price was as-
signed by his Lordship to defend the prisoner.
The prisoner appeared at the dock a thin, hag-
gard-looking man, with dark eyes ; he was care-
lessly dressed, and a piece of plaster was round his
throat, he having attempted, immediately after the
commission of his offence, to commit suicide by
cutting his throat. He kept his head hanging
down throughout the trial.
It appeared from the opening speech of the
learned counsel for the prosecution, and from the
evidence of the witnesses called, that the prisoner
was gatekeeper at Messrs. Palmer's iron ship-build-
ing yrrd at Jarrow. He lived in a small house in
a row of houses called Druid's-buildings, near there,
with his wife, eldest daughter, aged about 18, and
two on
them s,
boys, and a.brother of his wife lodged
with
in their house. His wife was 51 years
sons,
of age, and had borne him 11 children. She was a
careful, good wife, and attended to his home. There
were but two rooms in the house, a kitchen and
lodging-room.
i The prisoner's brother-in-law slept
on a sofa-bed n the kitchen at night, and the pH-
sonPhism.if:e,and his two boys slept in one bed
in the lodging-room, and his eldest daughter in
another bed. On the afternoon of the 18th of July
the prisoner and his hrother.in-law, a man named
Charlton, left their work at six o'clock and pro-
ceeded home. The prisoner was perfectly sober.
They got supper and sat up talking about the war
till about 11 o'clock at night, when Charlton went
to bed, leaving the prisoner and his wife up. They
had had no words and no quarrel. The prisoner's
daughter Elizabeth, who had been on an excursion
on a steamboat to Bayldon, came in about 11 o'clock
and then went to bed. Next morning at four o'clock
Chariton was awoke by his sister, the prisoner's
wife, coming into his room and to his bedside in
her nightdress, with her hair hanging down her
back, and holding her throat with her nightdress
against it in one hand, while she shook him
and made signs to him with the other. Blood at
that time was pouring from her throat and running
down on to the floor. A few minutes after he saw
the prisoner come across from his room and go into
the yard. He said to the prisdner, " What is this
you have been doing ?" The prisoner muttered
something, but he could not tell what he said. The
witness shouted out. to his niece, " Your father has
cut your mother's throat." The deceased then went
into the yard and into the privy, holding her che-
mise up to her throat, which was bleeding very
much, and returned shortly after into the house.
An alarm having been given, two neighbours, a
Mrs. Hart and a Mrs, M'Kie, came to the house
and found the deceased sitting on the hearthstone
with her throat bleeding very much. A doctor
was sent for and attempted to sew up a cut on her
throat, but she died a quarter of an hour after-
' wards, about five o'clock, from the effects of the
wound in her throat, and from loss of blood. There
was a gash in her throat five inches long, and cut
down to within an eighth of an inch of the verte-
brfe. The windpipe was severed, and the jugular
vein divided. When the neighbours first saw her,
the deceased cried out, " Oh! what have I done to
deserve this ?" Shortly after her death the pri-
soner was found lying on his face in a pool of his
Wife's blood, nearly insensible, and with a superfi•
cial gash in his own thrbat, which had been in-
flicted by a razor found beside him. He had lost a
good deal of blood, and was almost pulseless, but
rallied soon after. The razor with which the
wound on the deceased had been inflicted belonged
to Chariton, and was seen in the prisoner's hand
afterwards, and by him was placed, covered with
blood, on a chest of drawers. It appeared, on
cross-examination, that the prisoner was fond of
an argument, that he was very obstinate in his own
opinions, conceiving himself to be always right.
He was in the habit of retiring to his own room
alone, and scribbling down his thoughts on paper. ,
He had on various occasions ill-used his wife, but
it was when he had had drink, or wanted to get
money from her for drink. He had struck his wife
with a poker on one occasion, and had knocked
her down, and had been heard to threaten to cut
her throat shortly before this occurrence. He had
become jealous of his wife, and abused her about
some other man, without the slightest cause. A
paper was found in a translation of Herodotus in
his bedroom, which he was reading, and in which
he said he had put down his reasons for his rash
act. This was the envelope of a letter, closely
written all over, in which he stated that an Irish-
man lodged in the story below him, who played on
a tin whistle, and who, to his great surprise, he had
seen from the trellis-work of his window on terms
of familiarity with his wife. He had also that
night found three bricks at his door piled together,
and a ginger-beer bottle in his window-sill. Be-
lieving the bricks to be a " Sickle's sign" to this
Irishman, lie had separated them and placed them
on each side the door, and his wife had replaced
them again as they were before. This had con-
vinced him that he was right. He sat up to see
his wife to bed, but she began baking bread in the
oven till half-past one o'clock in the morning, but

he kept an eye on hurt and this satisfied him that
his'snkiicrons. were 'correct. To one of the neigh-
bours- he said -that-from two to -four o'clock in the
morning he had examined it, and worked it in his
mind, and found Tier guilty, and had puzzled
about it, when he felt himself justified, and with
one gash he had cut her throat while she was
asleep. He at another time said to the police he
was quite cool about it, and intended afterwards to
kill himself. Some of the facts were proved by
the prisoner's daughter, who was awoke by her
uncle calling out. The poor girl fainted as soon as
she had given her evidence. _

Mr. Price then addressed the jury for the de-
fence. He admitted that there were no facts in the
case to reduce the crime from one of murder ; but
he relied on the facts proved as establishing that
the prisoner at the time was not a responsible being,
and did not know the quality of the act he did. A de-
lusion about his wife possessed his mind which had
no foundation whatever in fact, and every trifle had
been twisted by him into a confirmation of his
jealousy. Without previous quarrel, without mo-
tive other than was suggested by a mind labouring
under a delusion, he had suddenly taken away the
life of his wife, who had borne him 11 children, as
she was sleeping unconscious by his side, and,
flinging himself down in a pool of her blood, had
attempted to commit suicide. Had he succeeded in
the latter crime, would not a coroner's jury on this
evidence have found that he had committed the act
while labouring under a temporary fit of insanity ?
After a very able speech the learned counsel left
it to the jury to say whether, on this evidence, they
could not reasonably acquit the prisoner of the
crime imputed to him, on the ground that he was
not a responsible agent at the time.
His Lordship, in summing up, directed the jury
that there was no evidence to support the defence
urged on behalf of the prisoner, that he did not at
the time know the quality of the act that he was
committing. His lordship then read through and
commented on the evidence.

The jury retired, and, after an absence of half an
hour, returned with a verdict of guilty.
His Lordship having put on the black cap, in an
impressive manner proceeded to pass the awful sen-
tence of the law on the prisoner. He had murdered
his wife, whom he had sworn to cherish. His lord-
ship implored him to make the best use of the time
still left for him on earth in preparing himself for
his fate. He then passed on him the formal sen-
tence of the law, that he be hung.
The prisoner looked unmoved, made a bow to his
lordship, and walked firmly from the dock.
His Lordship then ordered sentence of death to
be recorded against the prisoner George Benning,
found guilty yesterday of shooting at Margaret
Hodgson, with intent to murder her.

HON] E CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, JULY 27.
CROWN SIDE.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
Jonas Mitchell, 20, a private soldier, pleaded
guilty to two indictments charging him with the
offence of arson.

Mr. Justice Blackburn, in passing sentence upon
the prisoner, said, that he had pleaded guilty to
two charges of wilfully setting fire to farm pro-
perty, and there could be no doubt from the evi-
dence, as it appeared on the depositions, that he
had committed both the offences imputed to him.
It appeared that, without any motive of revenge
against the owner of the property—indeed, without
even knowing who he was, he had deliberately set
fire to some stacks of corn and caused considerable
mischief, and all this without the slightest prospect
of benefit or advantage. He was quite at a loss to
account for such conduct, but, without regard to,
the peculiar circumstances of the case, the offence
of ars )n was one of such a dreadful character tbat
for the protection of the public it was necessary
that a severe sentence should be passed upon every
person who was convicted of it, and he therefore
felt it to be his duty to order him to be kept in
penal servitude for the space of ten years.
James WToodger, 21, another private soldier,
pleaded guilty to a similar charge.
The learned judge said, that in this case the only
object the prisoner appeared to have had in view in
the commission of the offence was to escape from
contiuuing in the position of a soldier. He would
find that he had made a great mistake, and for
years to come he would bitterly repent the act he
had committed. He then sentenced the prisoner
to ten years' penal servitude.

George Webb, a young labouring man, surren-
dered to take his trial for misdemeanour, in having
wilfully driven a waggon and horses upon the line
of the South-Western Railway, and thereby en-
dangered the safety of the passengers travelling
upon the line.

Mr. Deedes conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Bar
row appeared for the defendant.

This-was a prosecution instituted by the South-
Eastern Railway Company under the following
circumstances. It appeared that the defendant was
in the service of a person named Nicholls, who oc-
cupies a farm called the Folly Farm, near Canter-
bury, which is intersected by the railway, over
which he had to cross with his teams on the level,
gates being placed on each side. On the evening
of the 22d of June the defendant had the charge of
a waggon with two horses, in company with a
younger lad, and soon after seven o'clock he was
about to cross the line, when a train from Rams-
gate came up, and notwithstanding the whistle was
sounded he continued his course, and although
every effort was made to arrest the progress of the
train a collision was barely avoided, the train pass-
ing quite close to the back of the waggon, and if
it had struck it a serious accident might have been
the result. The driver, fireman, and guard of the
train were examined, and they proved that the
whistle was sounded when the train was 300 yards
from the crossing, and that the defendant must
have heard it, but it was admitted in cross-exami-
nation that the horses were quite close to the first
gate, if not actually upon the line before they were
seen, or any alarm was given by the train, and the
boy who accompanied the defendant swore that
when he first saw anything of the train the horses
had partially crossed the line. It also transpired
that although there was a curve at this particular
spot, and that the line ran through a cutting, there
were no signals at the gates to denote that any-
thing was crossing the line, and no person was em-
ployed by the company to take charge of the gates
in question.

Mr. Barrow was about to address the jury for
the defendant, when
_ _

'Mr. Justice Blackburn interposed, and inquired
of the learned counsel for the prosecution which
portion of the evidence he relied upon to show that
the defendant had wilfully committed the act im-
puted to him ? _ _

Mr. Deeds said, he should submit that if the jury
should be of opinion that the act had been com-
mitted designedly it would come within the
statute.

Mr. Justice Blackburn said, " designedly" and
" wilfully" did probably mean the same thing, but
where was the evidence in this case to show that
the defendant had acted either designedly or wil-
fully ? If it was made out that any one who had to
cross a railway on the level, knowing that a train
was coning up, absolutely . and wilfully persisted
in going on, thinking to make the train stop, that
would undoubtedly constitute the offence with
which the defendant was charged; and it was well
it should be. known that it was so. But in the pre-
sent case the .evidence was that the horses were
actually upon the line before the defendant was
aware the train was approaching.
Mr. Deedes submitted that it was still a question
for the jury whether, when he became aware that
the train was coming, he might not have gone
back.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said, he did .not think,
from the evidence, the defendant would have had
an opportuntty of going back, and in all probability
the safest thing he could have done was to get the
waggon and horses off the line as quickly as he
could.
Mr. Barrow said, that this would have been the
defence he should have made upon the instructions
he had received.
Ti e jury then, under his lordship's directions,
returned a verdict of not guilty.
The learned Judge cautioned the defendant to be
very careful when he drove across the line in future,
as a serious accident might be the consequence of
any neglect.

WESTERNCIRCUIT.—DORCIIESTER JULY 27.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
George Trowbridge, gamekeeper of Lord Port-
man, who was convicted yesterday of shooting at
Edward Matthews, with intent to do him grievous
bodily harm, was this morning brought up to re-
ceive sentence.

Mr. Baron Brainwell then addressed him,—Pri-
soner at the bar, the jury have convicted you of the
offen ce—

Prisener—l.am not guilty.
The Judge—The jury have found you rre, and I
do not think they could properly have found any
other verdict, and no one who heard the evidence
can doubt that you are guilty.
The Prisoner—l am not guilty.
The Judge—lt is of no avail to say so when
the appointed authorities have found you are, and
I am bound to say that I am fully satisfied with
that verdict. The two men who were witnesses
against you were men of damaged character. They
had been convicted of poaching, and I repeat what
I said yesterday, that I never knew a poacher to
be an honest or respectable man. One of them had
been convicted, from what appeared, improperly,
but we have only his own statement; it might have
been a proper conviction; but it would have
been desirable, unless there was the greatest neces-

sity for it, that the charge should not have been
brought while this complaint was pending, because
the supposition would naturally arise that the
charge was made to deter and intimidate him from
giving evidence in this case ; and it was an indis-
creet prosecution by your friends, unless there was
an absolute necessity for it. So thought the jury,
and I think correctly. If their character was bad
there was the more reason that they should meet
with protection. I have no love for poachers, but
there is no need to shoot them. The law has made
ample provision for their detection and punish-
ment, and it is most essential that those men should
know that, outrageous as they may be, the law will
protect them. If it were not for that every en-
counter between gamekeepers and poachers would
be a bloody one, for they would turn and fight in-
stead of, as I recommend them, running away. It
is important that they should know that they will
receive protection. I think the crime was a very
mischievous and a very cruel one, that because you
were angry at what they probably had done, taking
a few wretched rabbits, you should have been guilty
of the cruelty of discharging a gun against this
wretched man. I have deferred passing sentence
in order that I might not allow any improper feel-
ing to interfere with my duty, and have allowed
the night to pass ; and I have also consulted my
learned brother, and we have come to the conclu-
sion that I ought to pass upon you a very severe
sentence, and that is, that you undergo penal ser-
vitude for four years.