The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-01 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—SHREWSBURY, July 28.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
Francis Hopwood, 21, engine driver, was charged
with cutting and wounding his wife, Mary Hop-
wood, with intent to murder her ; also with intent
to do her grievous bodily harm, on the 10th of
April, 1859, at Ludlow.
Mr. Bailey appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
Cook Evans defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was an engine
driver, who for some weeks had been living at
Worcester. His wife, the prosecutrix, who was
married to him in October, 1857, was living at
Ludlow, and on Wednesday, the 6th of April last,
the prisoner went there to see her, and wanted her
to go with him to Worcester to live with him. The
prosecutrix refused, and she and the prisoner ap-
peared to have quarrelled together on Saturday
night, and in the course of the quarrel the prisoner
seized her by the throat and held her till she
fainted. In consequence of this treatment the pro-
secutrix the same night left the house and went
to the house where her sister was living at Lud-
low, and stayed there till the morning. The
next morning, Sunday, the 10th, the prisoner came
for her, and wanted her to go with him to Wor-
cester, and as they were going along he put
his back against the wall and said, that before
he went any further he wanted to know what she
meant to do. The prosecutrix said, she did not
mean to live with him any more, and that she
would swear the peace against him ; upon which
the prisoner immediately struck her several times
in the face with a knife. He then got her down
and knelt upon her, and tried to cut her throat, but
she prevented his doing this by holding her shawl
to her neck. Her cries of " murder" brought a man
named Lewis to her assistance, and the prisoner ran
away. The prosecutrix was subjected to a long
cross-examination, from which it appeared that she
and her husband when living together were always
quarrelling, and that the only cause of difference
which led to this assault was the desire of the pri-
soner that she should go and live with him, and her
refusal to consent. Several other witnesses were
examined, from whose testimony it appeared that
on the Saturday night the prisoner had been very
much excited on account of his wife's refusartolive
with him, and had said that he should kill his wife
and be hung for it, and that her body would be seen
coming down the river. It appeared that there
were five slight wounds inflicted on the face of the
prosecutrix; and immediately the prisoner had left
her he had cut his own throat and inflicted a wound
nearly three inches in length, but not sufficient to
separate the windpipe, or to do himself mortal in-
jury. He then ran down to the river and attempted
to drown himself, and was taken out of the water
in a state of insensibility. In a few hours he re-
covered, and his first inquiry, on coming to his
senses, was, " How is my dear Mary ?" He then
appeared very sorry for what he had done, and was
in a very desponding state, and shed tears. The
surgeon said the wounds inflicted on the prosecut-
rix just severed the skin, while that inflicted by the
prisoner on himself was a much more serious wound.
It appeared that when taken into custody the pri-
soner had a small scratch on the side of his face,
and it was suggested on his part that the affair
arose out of a quarrel, which the prosecutrix might
have aggravated by scratching the prisoner in the
face, as it was proved she had done on the Satur-
day previous.
Mr. Cook Evans addressed the jury for the pri-
soner, and admitting that a verdict of unlawful
wounding could not be resisted, urged that there
was nothing to show that the prisoner was guilty
of the capital charge of wounding with intent to
murder, or of the felony of wounding with intent
to do grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Justice Willes summed up the evidence to
the jury, and they found the prisoner guilty of
unlawfully wounding.
Mr. Justice Willes said, the jury had taken a
very lenient view of the prisoner's case, and that if
lie had been found guilty of the felony he (Mr. Jus-
tice Willes) would have transported him for life.
The prisoner had been twice before convicted of
violent assaults upon women, and he (Mr. Justice
Willes) should therefore give him the utmost pun-
ishment which the law allowed, viz., two years'
imprisonment, with hard labour.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles and a Common Jury.)
PANKHURST V. TATON.
Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Moteram appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Gray, for the defendant.
This was an action brought to recover damages
for a breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff,
Mary Pankhurst, was a young woman of about 23
years of age, who had worked for six years in Mr.
G. F. Bowden's china manufactory as a ld grin-
der, and lodged at the house of a Mrs. Walsh, at
Hanley, North Staffordshire. From the evidence
of her master, who kindly came forward to speak
in her behalf, it appeared that she had always
conducted herself with great propriety, and to
his entire satisfaction. The defendant was a young
man of about the same age, who had been in
business as a butcher, but now lived with his
mother, who kept a gin palace, at Burslem, and
assisted her in the conduct of the business. The
defendant had become acquainted with the plaintiff
at Hanley, and visited her at Mrs. Walsh's. This
went on till the month of Sept. 1858, when tl,c
defendant took her to the house of a Mrs. Wrench,
at Burslem, and it was then arranged that she
should reside there until they were married, a cere-
mony which was to come off as soon as possible.
The defendant gave Mrs. Wrench half-a-crown to
put up the bans, and they were " called out," i.e.
published for the third and last time, in October,
but by that time it seemed the defendant's ardour
had cooled, and he had altered his mind, though
without communicating to the party most concerned
the change of his sentiments. The plaintiff un-
happily had yielded to the defendant's seductions
before she came to Burslem, and was in the family-
way, and, thus, hoping and believing that the de-
fendant would be as true and faithful as he seemed
in his amorous moods, she went to the church on
the day appointed for the wedding, and there
waited the arr(ival of her lover. But the defendant
never came, and when Mrs. Wrench went to look
for him she found him coolly walking about the
town, and treating the whole affair as of no im-
portance. Mrs. Wrench urged him to go to the
church, but the defendant male excuses, and said
thereivsk not time, though Mrs. Wrench assured
him there vas plenty of time, as the clergyman was
willing to wait tid 12 o'clock. But all she could
say produced no effect. She then tried to compro-
mise the matter by asking " Would he go in the
morning 9" To this the defendant assented, as it
gave him respite from Mrs. Wrench's importunities,
but he did not keep his promise, and he then for-
soak the girl whom he had seduced. In January
the plaintiff was delivered of a child, and the plain-
tiff's friends obtained an order on the defendant to
pay half-a-crown a week for its maintenance, and
the present action was then brought to recover da-
mages for the breach of promise of marriage. It
appeared the defendant's father had left some real
property, which was proved to be worth about
£2,000, and, by his will, the widow, who is 60
years of age, was to enjoy the property during her
life, and, upon her death, it would go to the chil-
dren, and the defendant's interest would be worth
about £5OO.
Mr. Gray addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages, and said there was no proof that the de-
fendant had seduced the plaintiff by a promise of
marriage. In such cases there were faults on both
sides, and he contended the plaintiff was better off
with one bastard child than she would have been
if the defendant had married her. In the latter
case she would probably have had a large family,
and, as the defendant had no means of keeping a
family, marriage would only have added to her
misery.
Mr. Justice Byles summed up the evidence, and
cautioned the jury against sweeping away the whole
of the defendant's expected fortune, but advised
them to give reasonable and moderate damages.
The jury laid their heads together for some time,
and then found for the plaintiff—Damages, £5O.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
Thomas Burden surrendered to take his trial,
upon a charge of stabbing and wounding William
Meredith, with intent to do him some grievous
bodily harm, on the 17th of June, 1859, at Llan-
voirwaterdine.
Mr. G. Browne appeared for the prosecution ;
Mr. R. Kettle defended the prisoner.
The prosecutor in this case was a farmer, and
the prisoner was a shepherd. The parties lived
near one another, and it appeared that on the 17th
of June last a quarrel took place between them, in
which the prisoner stabbed the prosecutor in the
back with a pair of shears. The prosecutor was
seen running away to his own house, pursued by
the prisoner, and a witness came up as the prose-
cutor sank on the floor of his house from loss of
blood. The prosecutor was subjected to severe cross-
examination, as to whether he had not on former
occasions threatened him. In the course of the
trial
The learned judge intimated that he thought the
charge of felony could not be supported, and that
there could be no answer to the charge of unlaw-
fully wounding.
The counsel on both sides acquiesced in this view
of the case, and the jury found the prisoner guilty
of unlawfully wounding only.'
Joseph Dickin surrendered to take his; trial on a
charge of manslaughter, in causing
the death of
Richard Hughes.
Mr. Boughey appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
Scotland and Mr. Kettle defended the prisoner.
The prisoner, who-was a very-respectable looking
man, was a cattle doctor, living at Tibberten. His