The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, March 23.
(Before Mr. Justice MAULE.)
Edward Price, 25, labourer, was indicted for the
crime of wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Horne prosecuted.
It appeared in this case that the offence imputed
to the prisoner was of a very atrocious character. It
seemed that having some spite or ill-will against two
persons who resided in his neighbourhood, he had de-
liberately gone before a magistrate and sworn that he
had seen the persons in sluestion in the act of com-
mitting a capital felony of an abominable character.
It was distinctly shown that there was not the slightest
ground for the charge, and the evidence did not leave
the shadow of a doubt that the prisoner had wilfully
perjured himself.
The jury, without the slightest hesitation, returned
a verdict of guilty, and the Learned Judge, after
making some appropriate remarks upon the aggra-
vated nature of the offence, sentenced the prisoner to
pay a fine of one shilling, to be imprisoned a week
and then to be transported for seven years.
(Before Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS, Q.C.)

George Sutton, George Buckhurst and Thomas
Buckhurst, three young men, of respectable appear-
ance, who surrendered to take their trial, were in-
dicted for misdemeanour, in being upon certain land,
in the parish of Crayford, armed, and in
pursuit of
game.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Strange conducted the prose-
eution ; the defendants were represented by Mr.
Dawson and Mr. Addison.
The circumstances of this case were of rather an
extraordinary character, and it occupied the court for
several hours. It appeared that the prosecutor was a
gentleman named Burnett, residing at Crayford,
where he occupied a considerable quantity of land.
On the night of the 29th January an under keeper in
his service, named Brazier, was out watching, accom-
panied by two persons, named Eaves and Etheridge,
and about ten o'clock they beard the report of a gun,
in a wood called the Square. According to the evi-
dence of these witnesses, they proceeded in the direc-
tion whence the sound of the shot appeared to pro-
ceed, and Brazier stated positively that he saw three
men in the wood, and he declared these men to be the
prisoners at the bar; and he likewise stated that Sut-
ton had a gun, and that one of the others had a pheasant
in his hand. The men got away at the time, and
soon afterwards, the assistance of a policeman having
been obtained, he was stationed at one of the outlets
of the wood, and upon Thomas Buckhurst coming
out he took him into custody, but the others got
away. In the course of the case, it was elicited by
the counsel for the defendants, that after Sutton and
George Buckhurst had got away, Brazier had given
Eaves a snare, and instructed him to go to a public-
house at Woolwich, where he was likely to meet these
prisoners, and an arrangement
appeared to have been
made that he should treat them with liquor, and inti-
mated that he was concerned in poaching transactions,
and by getting into their confi fence induce them to
make some admissions with regard to the offence with
which they were now charged. Eaves acted up to his
instructions, and according to his evidence, the pri-
soner George Buckhurst made a statement to the effect
that he and his brother and Sutton had been into
Burnett'a woods to look for game, and that he was
afraid his brother had been taken into custody ; and
he likewise represented that Sutton also made a simi-
lar admission to him. The witness who spoke to
these conversations admitted, after a good deal of
fencing with the questions that were put to him, that
he tossed with the prisoners for beer, and he would
not say that they had not had as much as six quarts
of beer while they were together. He also said, with
regard to other matters, that he could not remember
anything respecting them, and added that his memory
would be better according as he was paid, and that he
should remember more if two sovereigns were given
him than if he had one only. It likewise appeared by ;

the depositions that were put in, that when before the
magistrate one of the witnesses stated that when he
saw the prisoners in the wool he did not know them,
whereas, on the present occasion, he swore positively
to their identity.
The Learned Counsel for the prisoners, in theiead-
dress to the jury, made some severe remarks upon the
conduct of the keeper and his assistants ; and after
observing upon what they considered the evil effects
of the game laws, they said that the present prosecu-
tion was an instance of the zeal which was infused
into such prosecutions. They then remarked upon
the facts of the case, and urged upon the jury that
there had evidently been a conspiracy among the par-
ties to convict the defendants, and to support the
present charge. Some severe comments were also
made upon the conduct of the under-keeper, in sending
the other men to the public-house to give the prisoners
liquor, and to endeavour to entrap them into some
admissions ; and after remarking upon the improba-
bility of the prisoners making the statements which
the witness represented, they called upon the jury not
to place any reliance upon such testimony, and acquit
the defendants.

Mr. CHAMBERS, in summing up, said that in the
judicial position he then had the honour to occupy, he
could not help expressing his strong disapprobation of
the abominable proceeding that had been adopted, of
sending a person to treat suspected parties with
liquor, with the intention of worming out statements
from them, with a view to convict them of an offence.
He made use of the strong ob:ervation that it was
abominable, because he felt that the conduct of the
parties deserved that appellation. In savage countries
the act of eating and drinking together was considered
among men a pledge of good faith and confidence, and
he could not permit such an act of treachery as had
been proved in the present instance to pass over with-
out expressing the opinion, in his judicial capacity,
that it was disgraceful in a civilised country, and re-
pugnant to the law of England. The Learned Gen-
tleman then proceeded to draw the attention of the
jury to the facts of the case, and said, that under all
circumstances the statements deposed to by witnesses
who did not report them until some time after the
transaction, was a description of evidence to be looked
upon as very unsatisfactory, and in the case of a per-
son who was employed expressly to obtain a particu
lar statement, and under such circumstances as had
been deposed to in this case, he said it did not appear
at all impossible that he should have invented the
conversation, if it had not actually occurred.
The jury at once returned a verdict of Not Guilty,
and the defendants were ordered to be immediately
discharged.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT, Derby, March 22.
TAYLOR V. TAYLOR.

Action of debt upon a promissory note for 501.
Mr. Hayes for the plaintiff ; Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C.,
and Mr. Denison for the defendant.

The plaintiff and defendant stand in the relation of
father and daughter-in -law to each other, the de-
fendant having married his son.
The case of the plaintiff was this :—He was in the
glass-trade ; him son was apprenticed to the same
business, and when out of his time wished to set up
for himself. To enable him to do so, the father gave
him a promissory note for 501, the money to be called
in if the son was successful in business. He was
successful in starting, but died about three years
from his commencement.

The defendant's case was, that she had paid more
on her husband's account since his death than there
were assets, and this she proved by putting in various
accounts, the payment of which she was enabled to
verify ; there being several others of serious amount
she could not strictly prove, and therefore was de-
barred the benefit of having them taken into account
in her favour.

Mr. WHITEHURST characterised it as a very hard
action, which, if successful, would throw his client
into gaol.
The Learned JUDGE seemed to concur in opinion
as to the harshness of the proceeding.
The jury found for the defendant.
March 23.
(Before Lord CAMPBELL.)
Ann Orchard, aged 41, was charged with having, at
Repton, on the 13th of November last, killed and
slain her husband, John Orchard.

The present case was a very distressing one. The
prisoner, a very respectable-looking-woman, and of
good character, had been in the service of the present
High-Sheriff of Nottinghamshire. On marrying she
quitted service. Her husband, however, was a very
loose character, and there is no doubt gave his wife
great cause for complaint. On the day in question they
had beeri dining, when the wife, provoked by his al-
luding to some of his liasons, took up a broken plate
and threw it at him. The jagged part of the missile
struck the deceased on the temple, wounding an ar-
tery ; blood flowed copiously, but it was ultimately
stopped. The deceased was, however, incautious
enough to begin eating some grapes, and subsequently
went out. The hemorrage recommenced, and brought
on tetanus or lock jaw, of which he died.

The High • Sheriff for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Strutt)
and two of his daughters gave the prisoner a very
high character.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recom-
mended her to mercy.
The Learned JUDGE, taking all the circumstances
into consideration, sentenced the prisoner to one
month's imprisonment.
She had previously been out on bail.
William Cowley, alias Fletcher, aged 31, was
charged with having stolen one ewe, on the 24th of
January, at Breadsall, the property or one Mr. Pricey.
Mr. Willmore conducted the case for the prosecu-
tion.

The short facts of the case were these :—On the
morning of the 24th of January a ewe sheep was
missing from the field of Mr. Pacey, but the body of
a lamb was found that had been taken out of its
inside. From information obtained by the police the
house of the prisoner was searched, and an old cradle,
in a spare room, some piechs of mutton and bones
were found, and spots of blood leading up to the
cradle, as if it had been brought there freshly killed.
The skin of a sheep was also found on the premises,
sworn to by Mr. Pacey as the skin of the animal in
question. The prisoner told the officer who arrested
him he had the mutton from his sister. His defence
now was he bought the mutton for ls. 6d., believing
it was a drowned sheep, and his object was to feed
the dogs and ferrets which he kept to destroy rats.
The jury found him Guilty.
A previous conviction for felony was then put in,
and he was sentenced to be transported for 15 years.

OXFORD CIIiC VlT.—Shrewsbury.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
On Friday last Mary Catherine Newton was in-
dicted for the wilful murder of her mother, by stran-
gulation and burning. The prisoner had been twice
before tried for the same offence, but the jury bad
been discharged without agreeing to a verdict.
Mr. Phillimore appeared for the prosecution.
The evidence went to show that in 1848 the pri-
soner was in the service of a person named Dyer, at
Bridgenorth, and her mother was in the habit of oc-
casionally calling upon her. On the 4th of December
in that year the mother came to see the prisoner, who
treated her very coldly, but it did not appear that
there had been any quarrel between them. Mrs.
Newton complained of being cold, and Mary Corfield,
a fellow•servant of the prisoner, gave her some re-
freshment and some rum and water, after which
Mary Corfield went to bed, and left Mrs. Newton on
a sofa in the kitchen, where she was to sleep. The
fellow-servant had not been in bed long before she
heard Mrs. Newton calling out, "Don't, Kitty." She
went down stairs quietly and listened at the door of the
kitchen, but as there did not seem to be any quar-
relling between the prisoner and her mother she
returned to bed. In the middle of the night the
family were roused up by a quantity of smoke issuing
from the kitalen ; when, upon examination, Mrs.
Newton, was found lying, burned to death, across a
step leading to the brewery. The prisoner was in the
kitchen undressed, and evinced no concern at the
death of her mother. The floor of the kitchen was
wet, and bits of rag were lying about, and the cover
of the sofa spotted with oil, which was supposed to
have been poured out for the purpose of increasing
the flames. The prisoner was searched, and her
clothes were found to be wet
.up to her knees ; her
stockings were also wet and dirty, and part of her
shift was burnt. The servant girl, Mary Corfield,
detailed various outrages she had seen the prisoner
inflict upon her mother a month or more before this
event.
At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Huddlestone
addressed the jury for the prisoner.
Mr. Justice PATTESON summed up the evidence
with•great care and minuteness, and the jury, after
twenty minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
The trial commenced at nine in the morning, and
did not terminate till midnight.

WESTERN CIRCUIT—Exeter, March 22.
(Before Mr. Justice TALFOURD.)
Robert Curtice Bird, described as a farmer, aged
31, and his wife, Sarah Bird, aged 34, were indicted
for the wilful murder of Mary Ann Parsons, a parish
apprentice, by striking and beating her to death.
The facts of the case have already been fully before
the public. Much interest was excited as to the event
of the trial.

It appeared from the evidence that the deceased
was fourteen years of age ; she had been taken into
the service of the prisoners from the union work-
house on the 29th of September last, when she was
in perfect health. On the 4th of January she died,
and her mother, upon going to see the body, found it
covered with bruises, and a considerable sore and
abcess on the back, over which a plaster had been
placed. There were marks of blood between the
shoulders, and other signs of ill usage having been
inflicted. The prisoners had admitted that they had
punished the child ; and the female appeared very de-

sirous that no inquest should be held upon the body.
Evidence was given by several persons, who had seen
both the prisoners ill use the child. The medical
witnesses at some length described the injuries in-
flicted. Death was found to have result4d from con-
getion of the brain. There were several wounds on
the back of the head, and either of those injuries
were likely to produce effusion, although it could not
positively be stated that they had had that effect in
this instance.

Mr. SLAD having addressed the jury for the pr
soner',

The Learned JUDGE alluded to the medical testi-
mony, and said he thought there was a want of that
positive evidence which was required in so serious a
matter.

A lengthened argument then took place, when his
Lordship remarked that the evidence failed to bear
out the injury which had been alleged. and both pri-
soners were accordingly Acquitted by the jury.

NORTHERN CI ItGiilT.—Liverpool, March 23.;
(Before Mr. Baron ItoLrE.)
George Winterhottom, aged 49, was indicted for
manslaughter, in baying caused the dHath of John
Siddall, at Oldham, in February last, by putting him
into a vapour bath, and immediately afterwards pot-
ting and exposing him to cold in a shower-bath,
whereby his lungs became congested, of which con-
gestion he died.

It appeared from the statement of Mr. Monk, for
the prosecution, that the deceased was a youth of the
age of 17, who was in a consumption, and had con-
sulted the prisoner, a person who, until a few months
before, had been an operative in the cotton trade at
Oldham. Die prisoner called himself a herbalist, and
had in his house what he called medicated and reno-
vating baths. He placed the deceased in a hot steam
bath, and as soon as he was taken out he placed him
in a cold shower-bath. The youth had bee❑ treated
in this manner several times previously to the
10th February last. On that day he was
again subjected to the same treatment. On his
being taken out of the cold bath an emetic was given,
and he became very sick. He requested permission
to lie down. After a few minutes prisoner went up
stairs, and in a few minutes returned, saying the de-
ceased was in a fine sleep. In less than half an hour
afterwards the deceased died. On a post mortem ex-
amination it appeared that the left lung of deceased
was full of tubercles, and incapable of the function of
respiration. That the right lung was congested until
it was almost solid, and could not respire. This was
the cause of death. It was alleged that the treatment
was grossly uwkilful, and had pro luoed the conges-
tion of the lungs.

At the close of the opening of the Learned Counsel,
Mr. POLLOCK asked his Lordship whether from the
case, as stated on behalf of the prosecution, the charge
of manslaughter could be sustained.
His LORDSHIP said that mala fides must be shown,
or such an amount of ignorance as implies mala fides.
The question was, whether the prisoner had done his
best, for if that was so the prisoner ought not to he
tried for manslaughter. All great improvements had
taken place in opposition to the old practitioners. And
if people were liable to be tried tor acting contrary to
the regular system, no one would attempt to make
new discoveries in medicine. When a person had
acted bona fide, a charge of manslaughter, according
to the late case, cannot be supported.
Verdict, Not Guilty.
CIVIL COURT—(Before Mr. Baron RoLPE.)