The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-27 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIIICUIT.—MAIDSTONE, July 26.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
Emily Milner, a good-looking young woman,
with a baby in her arms, surrendered to take her
trial upon a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Ribton and Mr. Francis conducted the pro-
secution ; Mr. Russell defended.
This charge arose out of a case that was tried be-
fore Mr. Baron Bramwell at the summer assizes
last year, when a small farmer, named Stephen
Butcher, was tried for a felonious assault upon the
present defendant, and, being convicted, he was
sentenced by the learned judge to be kept in penal
servitude for 10 years. According to the evidence
adduced upon that occasion, the prosecutrix was a
married woman, and she had been to Maidstone
market on the day the occurrence took place, and,
at the request of the prisoner, she rode home in his
van, and when they arrived near a place called
Deptling, about four miles from Maidstone, where
prosecutrix and her husband resided, the prisoner
induced the prosecutrix to get out of the vehicle,
and he then committed the offence imputed to him,
in spite of her screams and resistance. The defen-
dant, after giving her evidence in chief, was severely
cross-examined by Mr. Ribton, the counsel for the
prisoner, and among other questions that were put
to her with a view to shake her credit, she was
asked whether improper intimacy had not taken
place between her and a man named Payne at a
publichouse in Maidstone on a former occasion, and
she positively swore that nothing of the sort occur-
red. This man Payne was called as a witness for the
prisoner, and he swore to the fact above alluded to,
but the jury, notwithstanding his evidence, found
the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to 10
years' penal servitude. T,ie prosecutrix was now
charged with perjury, the allegation on the part of
the prosecution being that she had sworn falsely
when she stated that no improper intimacy ever took
place between her and Payne. This person was the
principal witness for the prosecution, and he swore
as positively as he did on the former occasion to the
fact having occurred, but on cross-examination he
contradicted himself, and did not appear to give his
evidence in a very straightforward manner.
Illr. Russell made an able speech to the jury on
behalf of the defendant, and the learned judge hav-
ing summed up,the3ury, after a short deliberation,
returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—DORCHESTER, July 26.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
George Trowbridge was indicted for shooting at
Edward Matthews, with intent to murder him, on
the 15th February.

Mr. Saunders conducted the prosecution, and
Mr. Stock defended the prisoner.
According to the evidence of the prosecutor, he
and a man named Maidman were returning home
about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when they heard
a rabbit cry in a wood. They jumped through a
gap in the hedge, and saw a stoat had a rabbit.
They drove the stoat away, and Matthews put his
hand in a rabbit hole and drew out four little suck-
ing rabbits. They heard some one coming, and
they jumped back into the road, and the prisoner
then came up and called upon them to stop, adding
that if they did not he would be if he would
not shoot them. Matthews saw him raising the
gun to his shoulder. He moved a step or two ana
was then knocked down, as the charge of a gun
had entered his back. He became insensible, and

was then taken home in a cart. He had only been
able to work during the last three weeks. There
were 280 shots taken out of his back. He had not
a gun, or a stick, or a ferret with him.
In his cross-examination the prosecutor admitted
that he had been in prison for catching rabbits, and
for receiving some money.
Maidman, who was with Matthews at the time,
corroborated his testimony. The prisoner said it
was an accident, and he would not have had it
happen for £5.
In his cross-examination Maidman said that since
this transaction he had been fined £l4s. for fishing
at a place where others fished. No one had been
summoned for fishing at that spot, and there was no
board put up to warn people: Lord Portman's
gamekeeper had summoned him.
Mr. Baron Bramwell said he thought Lord Port-
man ought to be informed of this—taking two
weeks' wages from this man. It was very discredit-
able.

It was stated that rabbit holes had been fresh dug.
The defence was that it was an accident ; that the
prisoner, in getting over the gap, fell down, and the
gun went off by accident, and a witness was called
who swore that he saw the prisoner fall over the
gap, and the gun go off. He did not go to render
assistance, because he thought the men had been
ferretting.
Several witnesses gave prisoner a good character.
The learned Judge having summed up with great
care,

The jury found the prisoner guilty with intent to
do grievous bodily harm.—Sentence deferred.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.-LINCOLN, July 26.

Ann Whatmough pleaded not guilty to a charge
of murder of her male infant, at Covenham St.
Mary, on the 28th of June, 1858.
_ _

Connected with this case was another indictment
against Elisha Kirk and Lucy Kirk, who were
charged with aiding and abetting in endeavouring
to conceal the birth of the same.

Mr. Roberts conducted both prosecutions. The
prisoners had no counsel.
In his opening address the learned counsel cau-
tioned the jury against receiving as certainly true
all the statements it would be proved the prisoner
Whatmough had made, some of them having been
uttered under deep depression of mind. He then
stated the evidence in support of the case which he
afterwards adduced, which was in substance as
follows :—The prisonerWhatmough, on being taken
into custody, speaking, as she afterwards said, of a
man named Plumtree, said, " An old rascal, he
has ruined me and my family ; he is as bad as I
am, he told me to do it. He gave me the money
to get the stuff with. I bought it myself. I
made the instrument myself and used it myself.
He told me if I did not he should be exposed.
Let it cost what it would he would pay." On
being asked whom she meant, she said Plumtree.
She afterwards said, " I cannot say anything—l
will not say anything—against Tom."
The wife of Walters, a labourer, gave evidence
of statements made by the prisoner Whatmough,
who sent for her and said, " I have had a child, and
Kirk buried it," and afterwards, when in the in-
firmary at Louth, and thinking, as she said, that
she should die, the witness told her that she must
prepare to meet her God. She answered, " I have
my child to meet at the bar of God. You don't
know what I have on my mind." tneis
answered, " You have not to meet it—it was still-
born ; the child that is stillborn has no soul." She
answered, "It was not," and, added, "It made a
skimmering sort of noise. I murdered it" She
then proceeded to say that she had taken stuff at
Plumtree's instigation, but that she had nobody
but herself to blame.

Another witness, Sabina Smith, also deposed that
five months before the 13th of April last, What-
mough had been at her shop in great distress, and
being questioned as to the cause, said, " I have had
a child and committed murder, and I cannot rest
without naming it to some one." She then made
a more detailed statement, mentioning that Mrs.
Kirk had sewed the body in a rag previously
to its being buried.
The jury acquitted the prisoner Whatmough of
murder, and returned a verdict of guilty of con-
cealment of the birth.

The evidence against the two Kirks consisted of
statements made by themselves, whence it appeared
that immediately after the death of the child both
had known the condition of Whatmough, and in
consideration of a pawn ticket, which enabled them
to obtain a small table, Lucy Kirk and Elisha
assisted in burying it in a pit in a field, where the
decomposed body of a child, wrapped in a cloth,
was discovered. According to the opinion of a
medical witness, it was a seven months child.

The two Kirks were found guilty.
Ann Whatmough was sentenced to one year's
and the two Kirks to six months' imprisonment.
The remainder of this day the Court was occu-
pied in trying the class of cases which appeared
to form a large proportion of the crimes of this
county. In the most revolting of these the grand
jury have, however, ignored the bill, charging the
full offence.

Firth was charged with rape, committed
on Amy Jane Ranyard.
Mr. O'Brien was counsel for the prosecution ;
Mr. Flowers for the defence.

Amy Jane Rayard, aged 17, was said to be im-
becile, and consent on her part was alleged. She
was not called.

Mr. Justice Williams, after consulting with
Chief-Justice Erle, held that the proper course was
to have her examined as to her mental capacity by
three medical men.

Upon their reporting that she was of capacity
to consent, the prisoner was acquitted.

OXFORD CIRCUIT, STAFFORD, July 26.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
_ .

Thomas Watkins, 21, puddler, Edward Acton,
20, puddler, Edward Fereday, 19, forgeman, and
Joseph Allen, 21, collier, were charged with the
wilful murder of a woman, whose name was al-
leged to be unknown, on the 29th of May, 1859,
at Tipton.
Mr. M'Mahon and Mr. Corbett appeared for the
prosecution: Mr Kenealy defended the prisoners.
Mr. A/Mahon, in opening the case to the jury,
stated the facts at some length. From his state-
ment it appeared that on Thursday, the 2d of June
last the body of a woman was found in a disused
basin of the Birmingham Canal, called the No. 19
wharf, at Summerhill, in the parish of Tipton.
There was a bruise on the top of her head and
one on her left eye, but the body was
so much decomposed that the nature of
the supposed injuries on other parts of the body
could not be ascertained. The opinion of the sur-
geon was that the deceased had died of drowning,
but the learned counsel admitted that there was no
evidence to show that she had been put into the
water by the prisoners, or either of them.
Mr. Justice Byles said he had carefully read the
depositions, and he was of opinion that there was
no evidence to sustain the charge of murder.

A verdict of acquittal was then taken.
The prisoners and two other men were then put
on their trial for a rape committed on the deceased.
It appeared that this was one of the most shock-
ing and disgusting outrages which had ever been
committed, even in this county, notorious for crimes
of a savage and loathsome character. It is impos-
sible to dtail minutely the facts of the case as they
were proved in evidence, but it will be sufficient to
state that the deceased, who was about 25 years of
age, was first seen on Sunday, the 29th of May, by
a man named Walker, who spent several hours in
her company, and treated her to drink. There
could be no doubt that she was a woman of loose
character, and Walker had connexion with her in
the fields. A man named Jones afterwards joined
their company, and, after drinking at several pub-
lichouses, the two men went out and were followed
by the deceased, and all three went together to a
place near the Shrubbery Tavern, where, in pre-
sence of Walker, Jones had connexion with her.
All the prisoners except Fereday were in the
Shrubbery Tavern, and they followed to the place
where the deceased and the two men Walker and
Jones were. The prisoners began to pull the
woman about, and Walker and Jones went away
for a watchman, and when Walker came back
they were all gone. At that time the woman was
intoxicated, and some time after, at half-past 11,
the prisoners Watkins and Allen were seen taking
her along Hurst-lane, saying that she lived near there
and they were going to take her home. The party was
followed along the road by three men, Priest, Par-
ton, and Bate, who stated that at about 12 o'clock
they heard a cry of murder, and going to the spot,
they saw the woman lying on the ground in a field
near the canal basin, and the four prisoners by her
side on the ground. According to their evidence,
Watkins and Allen had connexion with the woman
in their presence, the woman resisting and crying
out; and as often as she cried out, Watkins or
Allen struck her on the face. The witnesses did
not at all interfere with the proceedings of the
prisoners, but if they were to be believed there
could be no doubt of the guilt of the four prisoners.
In addition to their testimony, there was evidence
of statements made by Fereday and Acton, before
the body was discovered, which left no doubt that
they took part in the outrage ; one of the prisoners
having stated that he was present and held the
woman while 16 men had connexion with her.
Mr. Kenealy addressed the jury for the pri-
soners, and con tended that it was impossible to con-
vict the prisoners on the evidence of such witnes-
ses, who, according to their own account, used no
effort to put a stop to the outrage, and described
what they had seen and heard in such a manner as

to show that they had no spark of decency or
virtue.

Mr. Justice Byles having summed up the evi-
dence, the jury found Watkins, Acton, Fereday,
and Allen guilty, and acquitted the two other pri-
soners. They added that they took a more favour-
able view of Acton's case.

His lordship, in passing sentence, said the pri-
soners had been convicted, on invincible evidence,
of one of the most brutal and barbarous outrages of
which he had ever heard. God only knew whether
the prisoners had anything to do with the drowning
of the deceased. The sentence upon Watkins, Allen,
and Fereday was that they be kept in penal servi-_
tude for the term of their natural lives ; and upon
Acton, of whose case his lordship said he also took
a more favourable view, the sentence was that he
be kept in penal servitude for five years.