The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-07 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—HERTFORD, MA T CH 5.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
Mark Wood, 25, and Wm. Edmunds, .33,= two
stout, powerful-looking men, were ( harged with
misdemeanour in having, with other persons, been
upon certain lands in the night time, armed with an
offensive weapon, in pursuit of game. '
There were several counts in the indictment, and
in one of them the defendants .were charged with
assaulting George Monro and Thomas Day.
There was also a second indictment against the
defendants, which charged them with feloniously
cutting and wounding George Monro, with intent
to do some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Clark, who conducted the prosecution, elected
to proceed with the indictment for misdemeanour.
Mr. Worsley appeared for Wood, and the other de-
fendant was undefended by counsel.
It appeared from the evidence that Monro and
Day were keepers in the employ of Mr. H. F.
Cavendish, who had the right of shooting over some
land in the occupation of a gentleman named Ames,
at Kimpton, near Welwyn, and that on the night
of the 16th of December they were is a wood called
Priors-wood, which was a pheasant preserve, on
the look out for poachers. While so engaged they
heard the report of a gun, and the pheasants• were
disturbed, and they went round the wood into a
lane, where they found the defendants, who were
well known to them and. they at once laid hold of
them. The defendants at first said they did
not want any disturbance, and they would go
" comfortable" with the keepers, and -Monro took
charge of Wood and Day of Edmunds, and they all
walked away in the direction of the head keeper's
cottage. They had only gone a short distance,
however, when Wood drew the barrel of a gun
from under his smockfrock and aimed a tremendous
blow at the head of the keeper Monro. He
warded it off with his arm, and returned the
blow, and a third man came up, and he
and Wood commenced a most desperate attack
upon the keeper with the stock and the barrel of
a gun. The other keeper, upon hearing Monro cry
out, went towards hint to render assistance, when
he was struck from behind and knocked down, and
the keepers were then beaten until they were quite
insensible, and the defendants got away. They were,
however, taken into custody on the same morning
at a beershop, called the Woodman, in the same
neighbourhood, and their clothes were found to be
completely saturated with blood, and Wood had
received a most fearful injury. upon the head. from
blows, inflicted by the stick of the keeper Monro.
Near the place where the struggle occurred there
were found a dead pheasant, a powder flask, and a
piece of the stock of a gun, which had been broken
during the fray, and which fitted the stock of a gun
that was found in the kitchen of the beershop. The
keeper, Monro, received very severe injuries, and
when he was examined by the surgeon his face was
Completely covered with a mask of blood ; he was quite
blanched and nearly pulseless, and for a considerable
time it was doubtful whether he would recover,
and it appeared that he was still suffering from the
violence that he had sustained.
The two keepers, Monro and Day, were called to
prove the above facts, and in answer to questions
that were put to the former by Mr. Worsley, he
said that he knew both the prisoners very well and
where they could be found, but his orders were to
apprehend any person he found. trespassing in pur-
suit of game, and this was his object in being out
on the night in question with his comrade Day. He
also said that after Wood had struck him with the
gun barrel, he hit him with his stick as hard as he
could, but he did not know whether he fractured
his skull or not, but he had heard it said in the
neighbourhood that his skull was fractured.
Baron Martin, at the close of the case for the
prosecution, upon an objection taken by Mr. Wors-
ley, said he was of opinion that the count for assault
could not be maintained. The statute only empowered
the owner or occupier of land to authorise his ser-
vants to apprehend persons found trespassing, and
as Mr. Cavendish only had the right of shooting,
he did not possess that power. The keepers,
therefore, had no right to apprehend the prisoners,
and they were justified in resisting.
Mr. Clark submitted that the mere act of taking
the prisoners into custody did not excuse their sub-
sequent violence, and that at all events there was
an excess of resistance that would amount to an
assault.
Baron Martin said he could not see that there
was much excess when one party used a gun •barrel
and the other fractured his skull with a bludgeon,
and he was clearly of opinion that the count charg-
ing an assault not could be supported under the
circumstances.
Mr. Worsley then addressed the jury upon the
counts in the indictment which charged the de-
fendants with being in the night time in the wood
in question in pursuit of game, and after observing
upon the melancholy consequences that were con-
stantly resulting from the system of game pre-
serving, and the orders given to gamekeepers to
apprehend poachers, he said that if Mr. Caven-
dish were present and heard the details of the

sufferings Of his victims and the shocking vio-
lence that they had sustained, he thought he
would pause before he enforced such orders in
future. Re then commented on the facts of the
case, and said that before they convicted the pri-
soners the jury ought to be satisfied, first, that there
were three persons at least in the wood at the time
in question ; and next, that they were there in the
pursuit of game, and if they were in doubt on
either of those points the prisoners were entitled to
an acquittal. _ 0

Baron Martin, in summing up the case, said he
should be verry sorry to make any observations
that were at all calculated to encourage poaching,
because he looked upon it as a most serious offence.
It was a trespass for any one to go upon the land
of another without his permission, and the offence
was aggravated by his doing so for the purpose of
taking the game, to which he had no right what-
ever. He must, however, repeat the observation he
made to the grand jury in reference to this case,
that it appeared to him that where the keepers
knew the parties whom they found treszassing, it
would be a much wiser and more prudent
course for them to allow them to depart, and
obtain a summons or -warrant against them on the
following day, and thus all temptation to violence
and resistance would be obviated. In this country
there was a general obedience• to the law, and per-
sons would readily go with a police-officer who was
known as such, but it was a very different thing
where men were seized hold of by keepers in the
night time, and the natural tendency of such a pro-
ceeding was to cause resistance and violence, and to
such serious consequences as had resulted in the
present instance. It might be said that the parties
might run away if they were not secured at the
time, but it appeared to him that this,was just what
was required, and he believed that the course he
suggested would be much better calculated to pre-
vent poaching than the proceeding that was now
adopted of endeavouring to seize. the parties, and
thus occasion these fearful acts of violence.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
The learned Judge, in sentencing them, said that
Wood appeared to have commenced the affray, and
he should, therefore, pass a more severe sentence
upon him than upon the other prisoner ; but still it
would not be so severe as it otherwise would have
been, on account of the suffering he had undergone
and the serious injury he had sustained. He then
sentenced him to be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for 12 months, and the other prisoner, who
did not appear to have taken so active a share in
the transaction, was sentenced to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for four months.
Elijah Smith, 34, was indicted for night poaching
and shooting at a keeper, named John West.
Mr. Glyn prosecuted.
This was a similar case to the last. The prisoner
was found with a gun in a wood belonging to Mr.
Bosanquet, at Broxburne, and he was seized by the
prosecutor, and during the struggle the gun went
off and the charge passed through the coat of the
keeper, fortunately without doing him any injury.
It was not, however, clearly made out whether the
gun was discharged by accident or designedly, and
the jury therefore acquitted the prisoner.
four months'
n was then tried upon another indictment for
imprisonment.
ight-poachingy and convicted and sentenced to

NORTHERN CIRCUrr.—DURIIABI, March 5.
Wm.
mli(l3uegfhor,odeMscr.:l3JusjticeßTlVilles.)
CnowN Cot;
traolner's
as a surgeon, who had
been committed under
his
:a
ei
rendered to take his
an indictment
inquisition, sur-
charging him with the mansul nder
Davis, at Kelloe. aughter of Martha
Mr.
MDavison D. Semour defendedisoner. the p and Mr. Greenhow prosecuted ;
r
Mr. Seymour opened the case.
The deceased,
Martha Davis, was the wife of a pitman
resiaolTt at
East Hetton. She was a woman of 42 years
in the enjoyment of good health, of robust fragee,
and broad build. At the time at which the occur-
rence took place out of which this inquiry arose
she was pregnant with her thirteenth child, and on
the morning of the 24th of August Mr. Ives, a wit-
ness of great importance in this inquiry, and an
assistant of Mr. Carnes a surgeon at Coxhoe, was
sent for. When he saw her, he would tell them, she
had incipient labour. He remained in the house
about two hours, when he left, but returned in the
course of the day. He then found that her position
had somewhat improved, but the progress was not
so satisfactory as he could wish. He then left her
again, and returned the following morning; but the