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

SURREY SESSIONS, March 20.

The March adjourned sessions, and last for the
present quarter, for the county of Surrey, com-
menced this morning, at the Sessions House, New-
ington-causeway, before J. E. Johnson, Esq., chair-
man ; T. Tilson, Esq., deputy chairman, and a full
bench of magistrates.
THE LATE DELICATE AFFAIR AT WALWORTH.
*EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS.—SamueI Cop•
ping, a retired sergeant of the P division, and Adam
Saunders, formerly a summoning officer at the
Lambeth Police-court, both of whom are pensioners
on the pplice fund, were indicted for committing a
forcible entry into the premises of Charles Percival,
also with grossly assaulting the latter.
, The court was crowded to excess by persons
anxious to hear the case.
Mr. Charnock appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
Sleigh, specially retained for Saunders, and Mr.
Lilley, with Mr. Oppenheim, for Copping.
Mr. Charnock, having briefly opened the case,
the particulars of which may be in the recollection
of the public, from the appearance of the parties at
the Lambeth Police Court a short time ago, the
following evidence was given :
Charles Percival, a tall, gentlemanly-looking
man, said he lived at 1, Cornwall-place, Kent-road.
He was a commission agent and jeweller. On the
24th of January he lived atCornbury-place, Wal-
worth, and occupied a bedroom there. I have known
Mr. and Mrs. Clarke for some time—the latter
many years. About half-past seven on the morn-
ing of the 24th of January I was dressing in my
bedroom, when I heard a knocking at the door,
which was locked. I heard Copping say, " Let
go." The kicking commenced violently, and in
about three minutes the lock was forced off, and
the defendants attempted to force their way in.
They had large sticks in their hands, and said they
did not want to injure me. Copping hit me on the
eye with his stick. I was at that time between the
bedstead and the door, and I asked them if they
had any warrant for what they did. They replied
that they had not, but both forced their way past
me, kicking me in a violent manner on the legs.
Copping jumped on the bed and tore all the clothes
off, and afterwards looked under the bed. There
was no person there, and had not been. Saunders
said, " You had better not offer any resistance, or
it will be the worse for you." After they had ill-
used me and turned the bed over, they made their
escape out of the house. Since then I have been
under medical treatment, and felt the injuries for
some days. Since the affair, persons have offered
to compromise the matter.
By Mr. Lilley—l have lodged at Cornbury-place
since May last. Mrs. Clarke came some two or
three weeks after me. I occupied a room up-stairs
up to Christmas.
Mr. Charnock—l object to this course, as there
are proceedings in the Divorce Court against Mrs.
Clarke.
The Chairman—We are not trying that, Mr.
Charnock, and I do not see anything objectionable
yet.
Cross-examination resumed—When Mrs. Clarke
came she took the first-floor front room, and I had
the back. When the knocking was at my door no
one asked for admission. I said, " Who's there," and
received no reply. They then kicked the door until
the lock flew off.
What were you doing at the time ?
Witness—l was dressing myself, and never at-
tempted to open the door. I had known Mrs. Clarke
15 years, and I knew that she was separated from
her husband in April last. I have known the de-
fendants some time, but I had no idea what they
came for. I only occupied the back room. There
was a sort of ante-room with a door in the middle
connected with my room, but Mrs. Clarke kept the
key. During the scuffle Mrs. Clarke came into the
ante-room to see what was the matter.
Mr. Lilley—Was not she in her night dress ?
Mr. Charnock-1 object to that, as it seems like
getting evidence for a divorce court.
Mr. Lilley—lt has to do with the credit of the
witness, and I have a right to ask that question. To
the witness—Was not Mrs. Clarke partly dressed ?
Witness—l do not know. I believe, however, it
was a dressing-gown.
Mr. Lilley—How do you gain your livelihood ?
Witness—l have a little private property of my
own, and am also a commission agent.
The learned counsel was about to put other ques-
tions of a similar nature, when
The Chairman interposed, saying that it was not
relevant to the case before the Court, and it was
disgraceful on the part of any one asking those
questions. (Loud cheers, which were immediately
checked by the officers.)
Mr. Lilley—l repudiate the observations made
by the Court, to whom, however, I have the highest
respect.
Cross-examination resumed—l had a beer-house
once, but I got rid ()fit, as I did not consider it re-
spectable.
Mr. Lilley—You say Mrs. Clarke lived in the
front room and you in the back. Did you not take
meals with her ?
Witness—l once took supper with her.
The Chairman—We have nothing to do with
Mrs. Clarke here. Why ask those questions ?
Mr. Charnock—There cannot be any justification
for these men breaking into his room, even if Mrs.
Clarke had her meals with him.
Thumping and knocking, with clapping of hands,
again took plaee among the auditory, when
The Chairman desired the officers to bring for-
ward the first person who so misconducted himself,
and he would commit him for contempt of Court.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sleigh for Saunders—lt
was Copping's voice I heard call out, "Let go."
Saunders was pushed against me.
Mr. Hopgood, of Cornbury-terrace, Walworth,
said that Mr. Percival lodged in the back room on
the first floor, and Mrs. Clarke in the front room.
There is a cupboard or ante-room between them. On
the morning of Jan. 24, I was roused up and saw
the defendants at Mr. Percival's door. They were
attempting to force it open, and when I came up
they said, "If you interfere with us it will be the
worst for you." They had sticks in their lands, and
I was much frightened. They must have got into
my house by climbing the back wall.
By Mr. Sleigh—l am a yearly tenant of the
house I occupy. Mr. Percival took his apartment
some time before Mrs. Clarke came. When Mr.
Percival first came he had a room on the top of the
house, but he removed down to the back room. I
occupied a room on the ground floor, and my house-
keeper, Mrs. Stephenson, slept.with me. We have
a servant who sleeps out, and when I heard the
knocking at Mr. Percival's door she had not been
admitted.

By Mr. Lilley—Had been managing barman to
Mrs. Stephenson, and now she was managing
woman to him. (Laughter.)
Mr. Sleigh—l presume to state, sir, that there is
no case against Saunders, inasmuch as no part of the
evidence shows that he has committed an offence.
The indictment is laid under a very old statute, as
far back as Richard 11. He argued at some length,
quoting the interpretation of the law from "Black-
stone," contending that the defendants did not
make a forcible entry for the purpose of possessing
of lands or detention. It was, as the case now stood,
a case for a civil action. The prosecutor was only
a weekly lodger, and not possessed of a tenement
within the meaning of the statute. Suppose he was
so, there must be proof of a forcible entry by the
front door. There was no evidence as to that, there-
fore the indictment could not stand.
Mr. Charnock argued that a lodger was a tenant,
and was possessed of a tenement by the holding of.
the back room.
The Chairman considered that the two first counts
could not stand, and the case must rest on the third
count of the indictment, for the assault.
Mr. Charnock hoped his Honour would grant him
a case on those two points for argument before the
judges, as he very much differed in opinion with the
Court.

The Chairman said he was quite willing to grant
cases on those points, as they were important.
Mr. Sleigh then said that as the case against
Saunders rested upon the common assault, he did
not think there was sufficient evidence against him
to go to a jury. He was the tool of Copping, and
as the evidence showed he was pushed forward by
that person, and thereby brought into the mess.
The Chairman observed that there was quite
sufficient evidence against him to go to a jnry.
Mr. Lilley then argued at some length on behalf
of Copping, contending that the indictment for
assault could not stand, inasmuch as it was in-
correct.

The Clerk of the Peace examined the indictment,
and perceiving a slight error in the words, at the
request of the Court amended it.
Mr. Lilley then said he had further arguments to
call the attention of the Court as to the meaning of
the statute, but, being a late hour, perhaps the
Chairman would think it advisable to adjourn the
case until to-morrow (this day).
The Chairman remarked that as it was a misde-
meanour he could do so, and he thought it would be
the best plan, as Mr. Oppenheim had to address the
Court on the point of law, and Mr. Charnock had
to reply, and then ihe case must go to the jury.
At the consent of all parties the case was ad-
journed until to-morrow morning (this day).