The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-05 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEwis, AUGUST 4.
(Before Mr. Justice Crowder.)
James Mitchell, 29, a young man of gentlemanly
appearance, described as a land surveyor, pleaded
guilty to a charge of forging and uttering a cheque
for £4O, with intent to defraud.

It appeared that the prisoner had taken up his
abode at the Marine Hotel, at Hastings, in com-
pany with a female, and that he represented him-
self to be Lord Charlville, and was consequently
treated with all the respect becoming the position
he had assumed. He and his companion lived on
the best of everything the hotel could produce until
the bill amounted to £35, and he then borrowed
£5 of the landlord, and gave him a cheque for £4O,
signed " Charlvilie," which turned out to be of no
value.

The prisoner put in a written statement, which
represented that his friends were highly respect-
able, and he had himself been educated at Cam-
bridge, and had followed the occupation of an estate
agent, but from unavoidable causes he had become
reduced, and distress had driven him to commit the
offence to which he had pleaded guilty. Upon these
facts he entreated his lordship to pass a lenient
sentence upon him.

The learned judge said the prisoner had pleaded
guilty to a very grave offence, and it was painful
to see a man apparently of good education, and who
seemed to have formerly filled a respectable position,
in such a situation as he stood at present. With
regard to the condition in which he represented
himself to be at the time he committed the offence,
he could not help expressing his opinion that no
one could be reduced to such a condition unless he
had been guilty of some great misconduct, and he
should have felt it his duty to pass a much more
severe sentence than the une he was about to pro-
nounce if he did not consider that the punishment
of imprisonment to a man in his condition was much
more severe and irksome than it would be to a per-
son in a lower condition of life. He then sentenced
the prisoner to be kept to hard labour for twelve
months.
James Goble surrendered to take his trial for the
manslaughter of Charles Hammond.
Mr. Wyatt prosecuted; the prisoner was de-
fended by. Mr. Roupell.
The prisoner, it appeared, was the landlord of
the Wheatsheaf public-house at Arundel, and on
the night mentioned in the indictment, the de-
ceased, who was his brother-in-law, and several
other persons, were at the house, and the whole
of them were more or less the worse for liquor. In
the course of the evening a quarrel took place be-
tween the prisoner and the deceased, and the former
struck his brother-in-law several violent blows, and
he died soon afterwards of congestion of the brain,
the death being apparently partly attributable to
the condition of drunkenness of the deceased, no
doubt accelerated by the injuries he had received.
Mr. Roupell, in his address to the jury for the
defence, endeavoured to show that the death of the
deceased arose from the drunken and excited con-
dition he was in at the time, and that the prisoner
therefore ought not to be convicted upon the pre-
sent charge.
Mr. Justice Crowder having summed up, the
jury retired, and were locked up till nearly ten
o'clock at night, when they agreed, and were con-
ducted to the judge's lodging and gave a verdict
of guilty.
The prisoner was this morning sentenced to be
imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three
months.
John Harman surrendered to take his trial for
wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr, Robinson and Mr, Merrifield conducted the

prosecution; Mr. Digby Seymour, of the Northern
Circuit, was specially retained, with Mr. Pearce,
for the defence.

The defendant is a man of some position and
property at Brighton, and it was stated that at the
last election for the western division of Sussex he
set off in a carriage, drawn by four greys, to offer
himself as a candidate. The offence imputed to him
was, that upon the hearing of a summons before
the Brighton magistrates; which charged Mr.
Cheal, the landlord of the Sun Hotel, at Brighton,
with an offence under the Victuallers Act, he swore
that on the 12th of May, which was a Sunday, per-
sons had been served with spirits and wine after
twelve o'clock on Saturday and before one o'clock,
p.m., on the day named. It appeared to be very
clearly made out that the defendant had made a
statement to this effect, and that it was not true ;
but at the same time it appeared that there was a
good deal of party feeling involved in the inquiry,
and that the defendant had been imbibing pretty
plentifully and was a good deal excited, and it
was very probable that at the time he made
the statement he really believed he was speaking
the truth, but was mistaken in the hour.
Mr. Seymour made a very able address to the
jury for the defendant, and he contended that there
was no evidence to show that the statement
in question was made wilfully and corruptly, and
said unless that was established he ought not to
be convicted.

Mr. Justice Crowder having summed up, the
jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—HEREFORD, Aug. 4.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
THE LEDBURY MURDER.

Yesterday, after the despatch of our parcel, Mr.
Huddleston continued the defence of the prisoner.
He proceeded at some length to analyse the evi-
dence upon which the prosecution relied. He con-
tended that there were plenty of other persons, and
some of them of the lowest possible character, who
frequented the office, and had opportunities of
seeing money taken from the drawer which was
robbed, and that part of the case therefore fell to
the ground. A tramp or stranger, knowing the
place was only protected by an old woman, might
have seen the light upstairs when the child was
put to bed, might have got in by means of a com-
mon latch key, and secreted himself ; or a man
might have come to the woman with a false tale ;
or some one might have obtained possession of the
key in the day time, and watched his opportunity
to use it, and have thus committed the crime.
Nobody could say that Mrs. Baker had no gin in
her hJuse before the murder. Where was the pre-
tence for supposing that the prisoner put the packet
of silver in Ca'bbage•lane? If he had murdered
the woman, and had had the whole night to him-
self, he would have selected some more distant
spot to deposit coin that was marked. The evidence
with regard to th e stamps had entirely failed ; and
it was appallin g to think that a man might be
hanged upon such testimony as had been produced
with reference to the cheques. He Concluded by
expressing a hope that God would guide them to a
right verdict.

The court them adjourned until this morning,
when the greatest excitement prevdiled in the
neighbourhood o f the densely crowded court.
His lordship .slummed up with great solemnity.
He said that probably the jury would never again
in their lives have to enter upon such a momentous
inquiry, and no time could be wasted and no labour
misemployed in endeavouring to come to a right
conclusion. He did not think it right for the in-
terests of the prisoner or the public that they
should enter upo tat the last part of the investigation.
The evidence in this case was of a circumstantial
nature, but if they found all the circumstances
tending to the conclusion of the prisoner's guilty,
it would constitute a case upon which the jury
might safely act. They were to dismiss from their
minds everything relating to the prisoner's former
life, because notbeing of that had been proved, and,
as far as they were concerned, there was nothing
against him but 'this terrible charge. His lordship
then proceeded to comment upon the voluminous
evidence, scannin g the circumstances with great
clearness, the prisoner leaning his face upon his
arms on the rails of the dock, never once raising
his head. The other clerks in the office (said his
lordship) came out of the investigation without a
stain upon them, and it was painful for them to
have to give evidence upon a capital charge against
their former companion. The life of the prisoner
was in their hands, and he thanked God it was not
for him but them to decide. They had a solemn
duty to discharge to the prisoner, not to convict
him on suspicion,. but they had also a solemn duty
to discharge to the public, not to acquit him if they
believed him t o be guilty. Direct evidence
there was none, but if juries always waited for
direct evidence, very few criminals would ever be
convicted. He crould see nothing in reference to
the notes and cheques upon which it would be
safe to rely. It depended entirely upon the credit
they thought they might repose in the witnesses
Seers and Thomas. He could hardly think that
they had come 'to swear away a man's life
on this occasion by swearing that which they had
never seen. If they believed those witnessos, the
prisoner was proved to be in possession, not of the
stolen cheques, but of a cheque which was burnt
in his room. That was what the evidence amounted
to. He had, in the course of his remarks, said all
he could say in favour of the prisoner. If the jury
thought he was guilty, they must do their duty to
their country and find him so. If they entertained
any doubt, not a capricious, but a reasonable and
• übstantial doubt, they would give the prisoner the
benefit of the doubt. With the counsel on both
sides, he wished that God might guide them to a
right conclusion.
The jury retired to consider their verdict. In
about forty-five minutes the bailiff came back and
said the jury could not agree. There was no action
taken upon this announcement, and the jury con-
tinued their deliberations.

At three o'clock his lordship sent a message to
the jury that he would retire to his lodgings, and
would return to court to receive their verdict. At
ten minutes to four it was announced that the jury
had agreed, and a message to that effect was sent
to the judge, who immediately returned to court.
The foreman then announced that they found a
verdict of not guilty.
A fearful sceue followed, for the prisoner, who
had been led up in a state of exhaustion, was seized
with a fit, and it required the utmost exertion of
three strong men to restrain his violence. This was
on his recovery from a kind of fainting fit, in which
he fell when the verdict was delivered. A glass of
water was procured, part of which he drank eagerly,
and recommenced struggling. At length he arti-
culated "I am innocent, lam innocent." He ap-
peared not to comprehend the verdict, nntil it was
repeated to him by Captain Glenn, the governor of
the gaol, whom he clutched by the hand, and said,
" God reward you for your kindness." He was
removed from the dock with great difficulty, his
face wearing an expression of terrible ghastliness,
and his whole demeanour presenting the idea of a
man whose reason was suddenly lost.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—WARWICK, ALG• 4.
(Before:Justice Williams.)
RIOTS AT FOLESIJILL.

---
James Cooke, 22, miner, Sarah Bartlett, 35, mar-
ried woman, William Lenton, 22, miner, and Joseph
Ward, 30, miner, were charged with having riot-
ously assembled with others, on the 14th of April,
at the parish of Foleshill, and did then and there
assault and beat one Thomas Leadbitter, contrary
to the statute.
Mr. Spooner appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. O'Brien for the defence.
The offence arose out of an attempt on the part
of a number of people to prevent the proprietor of
a colliery—the Victoria Colliery—employing
tain people in his colliery, and the prisoner Cooke
took the part of a ringleader, and threatened a man
named Leadbitter, and pushed him into a ditch.
The jury found Cooke guilty of a common as-
sault, the other prisoners not guilty.
Thomas Dutton, 34, weaver, Samuel Golby, the
younger, 30, miner,
and Margaret Golby, 69,
married woman, were charged under similar cir-
cumstances.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of guilty against all the prisoners.
Sentences deferred.

NORFOLK. CIRCUIT.—IPSIVICH, AUG. 4.
CROWN COURT.
(Before the Chief Baron.)
FARROW T. BLOOMFIELD.—SEDUCTION AT FRAM-

LINGHAM.
Mr. Couch and Mr. Brown appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. H. Mills appeared as counsel for the
defendant.

action was brought to recover damages from
the defendant for having seduced the daughter of
the plaintiff, whereby he had lost the use of her
services in his business.
The defendant pleaded not guilty; secondly, that