The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-21 00:00:00

A SSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEWES, MARCH 20.
(Before Chief Justice Erle.)
Joseph North, 36, a ,respectable-looking man,
who appeared to be partially paralysed, and who
was lifted into the dock by the turnkeys, pleaded
guilty to three indictments charging him with
forging bills of exchange.
Mr. Ribton, who appeared for the prisoner, said
that he had heretofore borne a very good character
and had carried on a very extensive business as a
contractor at Brighton. He could not deny that
he had put in circulation the bills in question, and
that they were forged, but he was instructed that
the prisoner really intended to take them up, and
that he had, as he believed, completed an arrange.
meat with a money-lender at Brighton, who was
to advance the money for that purpose. At the
last moment, however, this person declined to do
so, and the prisoner upon this immediately gave
himself up and admitted his offence.
Several respectable witnesses were called, who
gave the prisoner a high character, and also stated
that at the time the offence was committed the pri-
soner was entensively engaged as a contractor at
Brighton, and had 80 horses belonging to him and
employed in his business.
Chief Justice Erie said ha was at a loss to under-
stand how a man in the position the prisoner was
alleged to be, and who had so much property at
his disposal, could be pressed to raise £lOO, which
appeared to be the total amount of the bills that
were alleged to be forged.
One of the witnesses who had been called for the.
prisoner said he believed that at th.e death of the
prisoner's father he had made himself responsible
for his debt, and that this had caused him to be
pressed for money.
Mr. Roupell, who was instructed for the prose-
cution, stated in answer to a question put by the
learned Judge, that there was no reason to believe
that the prisoner had put any other forged bills
into circulation than those that were now the sub-
ject of inquiry.
Chief Justice Erle, in passing sentence, said that
the offence of forging commercial instruments was
such a very serious one that under ordinary cir-
cumstances it would have been his painful duty to
have subjected the prisoner for this offence to a
long period of penal servitude. Taking into con-
sideration, however, the peculiar facts of this case,
and also the physical infirmity under which the
prisoner appeared to be labouring, he would not
pass upon him a sentence of that character, but he
felt it still to be his duty to inflict a punishment of
some severity, which was imprisonment and hard
labour for 18 months.
Wm. Nicholson, 36, labourer, was charged with
stealing a pair of corduroy trousers, value ls., the
property of Edward Whittingtou.
Mr. Gates prosecuted.
The fact of so trumpery a charge as this being
sent to be disposed of by one of her Majesty's judges
of assize created a good deal of observation in the
court, particularly in reference to the very peculiar
circumstances under which it was preferred. It
appeared that the prisoner had been staying at the
house of the prosecutor, and that after he had left an
old pair of corduroy trousers were discovered torn
in half, and one portion was subsequently found in
the possession of the prisoner, the other half being
left behind.
The learned judge, after the evidence had been
given, said the case appeared to him very unintel-
ligible with regard to the supposition of felony, and
that the act was one of malice rather than with an
eye to profit, which must have been very small in-
deed, and he left it to the jury to say whether the
prisoner ought to be convicted of felony under such
circumstances.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of not
guilty.
Thomas \Vood, an elderly man, stated to be pos-
sessed of considerable property, surrendered to take
his trial for the manslaughter o f Sarah Linfield..
Mr. Connolly conducted the prosecution. The
prisoner was defended by Sergeant Ballantine and
Mr. Roupell.
The learned counsel fot the prosecution, in open-
ing the case to the jury, said it was one of a very
painful character. The prisoner, who was a very
respectable and, he believed, kind hearted man, had
undoubtedly caused the death of the deceased
by shooting her with a gun on the 14th of August,
but he was bound to admit that he never enter-
tained the slightest intention of causing such a
catastrophe, and that the fatal result could only be
attributed to negligence in the use of the weapon,
and in discharging it close to a public highway,
without taking care to ascertain'that no person was
near enough to be injured by the discharge. If he
should be able to make out negligence to this ex-
tent, the prisoner would in law be amenable to the
charge of manslaughter, and it would be their duty
to find him guilty of that offence, but his lordship
would have the power of passing any sentence that
he considered the circumstances of the case might
require.
The evidence for the prosecution was then gone
into, and it appeared that on the 14th August the
prisoner, who occupied a considerable quantity of
land at Worth, in this county, was in one of his
meadows, when his attention was called by a
labourer to a rook that had settled in an adjoining
field, and he said that the birds did great harm to
the wheat, and asked the prisoner to go and fetch
his gun and shoot the rook. He went for the gun,
and came back in a short time and levelled it at the
rook, and fired through the hedge, which adjoined
a public road, which it appeared, however, was not
much frequented, and the deceased, who was a poor
woman, passing by at the time, received the whole
of the charge in her face, and the lower jaw was
completely carried away, and she died almost in-
stantly. Immediately after firing the shot the
prisoner went back to the man and said he heard a
sort of snoring on the road, and he hoped to God he
had not hit any one. They then both went to the
spot, and found the deceased lying on the road in
the condition above stated, and the prisoner sent
for a surgeon, and exhibited the utmost distress of
mind at what had occurred.
Sergeant Ballantine was about to address the
I jury for the prisoner, when they turned round and
consulted for a minute or two, and the foreman
then said the jury were of opinion that, under the
circumstances, the prisoner ought not to be con-
victed of manslaughter.
Chief Justice Erle said he had no desire to inter-
fere in any manner with the conclusion the jury
had arrived at, but he would merely state that in
law, supposing a person to be doing the most law-
ful act in the world, if that act was attended with
danger to others, and he did not use reasonable care
and caution to prevent mischief, if mischief resulted
from the want of that proper care and caution, he
was responsible for the consequences.
The jury then deliberated a second time for a
minute or-two, when they announced they were
unanimously of opinion that the prisoner was not
guilty.
Chief Justice Erle said he received the verdict
with great satisfaction, because there was no doubt
that the prisoner. never intended to cause any mis-
chief, and he appeared to have been very sorry
afterwards, and to have acted-with great kindness.