The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-10 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

CRIMINAL COURT—WORCESTER, MARCH 8.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
William Edwards, a labouring man, 52 years of
age, was charged with a rape on a girl between 14
and 15 years of age, named Susannah Mason, on the
18th of December, 1858, at Kidderminster.

After a lengthened trial the jury found the pri-
soner guilty only of the attempt.
Mr. Justice Crompton, in passing sentence, said
the punishment which he was able to give the pri-
soner was wholly disproportioned to the crime
which he had committed, but, as the jury 'were not
satisfied that the complete offence had been com-
mitted, the sentence was that he be imprisoned with
hard labour for two years.
William Checketts surrendered to take his trial
on a charge of indecently exppsing himself in a
public place near to a public highway to divers
persons then and there passing and repassing, &c.,
onthe 13th of October, 1858, at Pershore.

Mr. J. J. Powell appeared for the prosecution;
Mr. R. Kettle defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that the prosecu-
tor, Charles Lane, kept a publichouse at Pershore,
and that the exposure in question was committed
by the defendant in the bowling-green belonging
to the house, and was seen by the prosecutor and
wife from an upstairs window. No other witness
was called, though it appeared there were several
people in the bowling-alley at the time.
At the close of the case for the prosecution,

Mr. Kettle submitted that the indictment was not
proved, as it was necessary on this indictment to
show that there was an exposure to persons passing
along the highway.
Mr. Powell contended that the words which re-
ferred to the highway might be rejected as sur-
plusage, and then the indictment would be proved,
and the words " then and there," &c., would refer
to the public place.
Mr. Justice Crompton consulted Mr. Baron
Channell, on the point, and held that the defendant
must be acquitted, as it was not shown that there
was any exposure to persons on the highway. His
lordship, however, wished it to be known that the
difficulty was only a technical one, which would
probably not occur again.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—DORCHESTER, March 9.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Watson.)
Mary Ann Waters was indicted for stealing a
brooch from a post letter at Sherborne, on the 30th
of July.
Mr. Slade and Mr. Poulden were counsel for the
prosecutor, and Mr. Ffooks defended the prisoner.
The prisoner was a young girl in the service of
the postmaster at Sherborne. On the 30th of July
a small box, containing a pearl brooch, was posted
at London for Mr. Gooden, at Sherborne. Mr.
Gooden received the box, but it did not contain
anything. Some suspicion existed in the postmas-
ter's mind about the prisoner, and on the 4th of
August he called her into the room, and asked her
to produce the contents of her pockets. She first
produced a silver pencil case, which she said she
had found. She then produced a pearl brooch,
which she said her aunt had given her. The
postmaster sent for her mother, and asked her if
she had ever seen the brooch before. She said she
had not, and then he turned her away. A few
days afterwards, on hearing of Mr. Gooden's loss,
the police were sent for, and upon going to the
girl she said she had picked up the brooch from her
master's floor. The girl was only fifteen years of
age. The box had been opened, and resealed with
post-office wax, and stamped with the pencil case
which the prisoner had in her pocket.
Mr. Ffooks addressed the jury for the prisoner,
suggesting that them, might have been irregula-
rities in the office, and that the box might have
been on the floor.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recom-
mended her to mercy.
The learned Judge said it was a sad case, but it
could not be passed over lightly. She must be
imprisoned and kept to hard labour for fifteen
months.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Crowder and a Special Jury.)

FRY V. BRYANT.

Mr. Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. Stock were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Slade and Mr.
Barstow for the defendant.

Acccording to the statement of the plaintiff's
counsel, it appeared that this was an action to re-
cover against the defendant for having written a
letter containing a libel on the plaintiff, who was
the son of a respectable farmer residing in this
county. It would seem that the plaintiff was en-
gaged to be married to a young widow of fortune,
Mrs. J. Foot. In June last Mrs. Foot was on a
visit to her incle, Mr. Good. On the 20th of that
month a letter came to Mrs. George Good. Mrs.
Good opened the letter, which was to this effect :

"My dear Madam,—Excuse me for addressing you,
having a gnat respect for yourself and family, respecting
T. F. His private character is infamous. He keeps a
woman. I wish you could see him.
"Yours, ".1. F.,,
Mrs. Good handed the letter to Mrs. Foot. Mrs.
Fry, the mother of the plaintiff, and Mrs. Bryant
were related. After the receipt of this letter the
engagement between the plaintiff and Mrs. Foot
was broken off. The plaintiff took every step to
discover who was the writer of the letter, and, from
comparing it with different writings of the defen-
dant, persons were of opinion that this letter was
in the handwriting of the defendant. The letter
had also been submitted to different experts, and
they were of opinion that the defendant must have
written it.
_

Witnesses were called to make out the plaintiff's
case, and he himself was called, and it appeared
that he had been paying his addresses to the widow
for four years. The widow herself was called, and
she stated that she had allowed the plaintiff to pay
his addresses to her, but she would not admit that
they were engaged. Several experts and fac-
similists were called, and they gave the usual evi-
dence that the turns of the " d's" and the " f 's"
were the same upon looking at the writing through
a glass of extraordinary magnifying power.
The -defendant was called, and swore most posi•
tively that he had not written the letter, and that
he knew nothing of it.
The jury, after a trial which lasted nearly the
whole day, found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, one farthing.
Thejudge certified for the plaintiff to have his
costs.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, March 9.
CROWN COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Guilliers Heron, aged 23, a giPsY, 'was indicted
for having, along with another man, assaulted and
robbed Richard Gillbank of 25., at Bickerton, near
Thorp-arch, on the 16th of January last. •
The Hon. A. Liddell prosecuted, and Mr. Shep-
herd defended the prisoner.
The prisoner, it appeared, was one of a tribe of
gipsies encamped in a lane near Thorp-arch, and
the prosecutor is a boy acting as firm servant in
that neighbourhood. On the afternoon of the day
in question he was going home fromhis work about
half-past four, as it was getting dusk, when he saw
two men seated on a style. They advanced towards
him. Both were dark complexioned, and one had
long black hair. The latter had a knife in his hand.
On coming up with him they demanded his money
or his life, and one of them, whom the prosecutor
confidently swore to be the prisoner, put his hands
into the prosecutor's pockets and took out 2s. The
men then made off towards the rlace where the
gipsy encampment was, the prosecutor set off
to find a policeman. Having obtained a constable
they entered the encampment, which consisted of
three or four tents, and the prosecutor identified
the prisoner, who was brought out of one of them,
as one of the men who had robbed him. The de-
fence set up was that the prosecutor, who was much
alarmed at the time, was mistaken as to the identity