The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-31 00:00:00

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-STIREWSBURY, July 30,

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
Charles Jones, a respectable looking man, was
charged with the manslaughter of William Rogers,
a cripple, at Kinnerley, on the sth of June.
Mr. Benson prosecuted ; Mr. Corbett defended
the prisoner.
A verdict of Guilty was returned.

Sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
Thomas Bishop, cattle and cider dealer, of Wel-
lington, nereiorastaire, surrenaeren to -mire nis trial
on the charge of manslaughter of Thomas Timlin,
on the 15th of July, at the Grapes-inn, Shrews-
bury.
Mr. Benson prosecuted, and Mr. Powell defended
the prisoner.
A verdict of Guilty was returned in this case
also, which, like the latter, arose out of a public-
house brawl.

Sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
FATAL FIGHT BETWEEN TWO FARMERS.

William Farmer, of the Meadows Farm, near
Churchstoke, farmer, was charged with the man-
slaughter of William Corfield, farmer, of Little
Stretton, on the 18th of July.
Mr. Corbett for the prosecution ; Mr. Benson and
Mr. Motteram for the prisoner.
It appeared that on the evening of the 17th inst.
Farmer and Corfield met in Little Stretton, both
being on horseback, They were opposite the Crown
Inn, and after a little conversation they began to
abuse each other. Foul language was made use of,
the word liar was bandied about, and Farmef showed
fight. They appeared to be tipsy, as well as others
with them, having been at rent audit. Preen, the
landlord of the Crown, tried to stop the fight, but
was driven into his house by Farmer. Corfield had
ridden off, and Farmer galloped after him, and over-
took him on the canal bridge. There he struck him
several times on the back of his head with a stick.
immediately after the last blow Corfield fell heavily
on the ground. Farmer did not help him up again,
Out some persons who saw the affray did so, and
carried him to his own house close by.
Mr. Wilding, surgeon, of Church Stretton, after
making a post-mortem examination, found serious
fractures and a starred wound on the head, with a
great effusion of blood, which in his opinion caused
death. The wonder was that the man lived an
hour after such injuries, but he did not die until
the morning of the 18th. The whole of the injuries
could not have been inflicted by the fall, but were
the result of direct blows in conjunction therewith.
Mr. Motteram made an earnest appeal on behalf
of the prisoner, and called several witnesses to
character.

His lordship having summed up, the jury re-
turned a verdict of Guilty.
Sentence—three months' imprisonment with
hard labour.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—EX EWA:, July 29,
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Channel).)

BRADLAIJOII V. EDWARDS.-ACTION FOR FALSE

IMPRISONMENT.

The plaintiff is well-known by the soubriquet of 1
Ml. Collier,
" Iconoclast," and a lecturer on free thought in
rhfeervelnacienttioixt.hd,aeenfdS.c.mr.ipr.tures ; and the defendant is
the superintendent of the Devon port Police force.
Kingdon for
opeenndant.
Q C , and Mr. Lopes appeared for
M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr.
that the plaintiff announced From the of Mr. Collier it appeared
a lecture at the that he should deliver
March. "Iconoclast"
Devonport, on
Sunday, the 3d
d meant a
tisbekiever in idola-
trous worship.
breaker of imagHesa,viaongd
said that
thatietswe was stupid for
the police to make martyrs )
men,
something
et re-
markeder odo a t h
inat
tiltYhod were
ox in political
hlreligion,
gbieolni e, ved
and
o
economy, for they did not hold with "strikes." The
superintendent of police was, no doubt, a very good
injudiciously, for
man, but he acted most
he went
to the owner of the field, a Mr. Tozer, and tried to
get him to forego his agreement w iththe lecturer ;
field
and ultimately he went to the with the deter-
mination to prevent the gentleman from lecturing,
and if he did lecture to take him into custody. He
believed the law held that the superintendent had
no right whatever to interfere with the plaintiff;
but if he gave utterance to that which was blas-
phemous, or any seditious doctrine, he was liable o
be indicted. There were about 200 people in thet
field, and the plaintiff said something to the effect
that he was induced to address them on the Bible.
If the superintendent heard that in the course of his
address the plaintiff uttered anything which was
profane, blasphemous, or immoral, he might have
proceeded against him according to law, and unless
the plaintiff was using such language as would lead
to a breach of the peace the police had no right to
interfere. But the police did interfere. On Mr.
Bradlaugh persisting to proceed with his lecture five
or six policemen laid hold of him to take him off the
field ; and one of them seized him by the collar in
such a way that he experienced a choking sensation,
and he begged him to take his hands off. • The
police, however, removed him to the station-house,
and gave him in custody on a criminal charge. The
learned counsel said the charge which the police laid
against the plaintiff was that he was inciting to a
`breach of the peace, and that he resistedthe
police-
men in the execution of th • eir duty. But it seemed
the next morning that charge was altered, and that
'the plaintiff was inciting to a breach of the peace,