The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-09 00:00:00

was knocked down and beaten till he was insensible, his
boots taken off, and a sovereign taken out of his pocket;
when he recovered his senses he could not crawl, but was
carried home... Although so long ago, he had not yet re-
covered from the injuries he received that night. A man
of the name of Burton was afterwards apprehended for
the offence, was tried, convicted, and executed. In-
quiries were made for the prisoner, who was at the time
a kind of horse-dealer, but he could not be found. A
witness named Lapstone gave the following account of
the transaction:—He saw Britton and Burton coming
from-towards the "bush-house;" he stood on one side.
He saw Bartlett coming along after the two men. Brit-
ton and Burton returned and gave Bartlett the meeting.
Britton went up to him, and knocked him down with a
whip which had a hammer at the end of the handle.
Burton then beat him with a large stick, which was the
leg of a trestle. Britton fell with one knee upon
Bartlett's breast. More of the party, who were
gipsies, then came up and surrounded them. He saw
Robert Burton, the brother of the man who was exe-
cuted, carrying away Bartlett's boots ; he heard them
talking about the division of the property they had taken.
The witness swore most positively that he had never said
he could not swear to the person who had knocked Bart-
lett down. Another witness, named Charlotte Neill, who
had a standing close to where this occurred, swore that
she-saw Britton knock Bart!ett down, and Burton take
his boots off, and Britton kneel upon him and unbutton
his small clothes ; heard Britton say, " We've got the
boots, and now let us cut." They tried to pull off his
small clothes, but could not. She had known Britton
from a child; he at first sold oranges and lemons at fairs,
and afterwards dealt in horses. She subsequently saw
Burton try on Bartlett's boots. James Loxton, who was
a waiter in a booth, saw Britton and a largo party of ,
men going about the fair together, and he said, to Brit-
ton, " You devils, what are you going about, you'll kill
same one or other ?" Britton replied, " You hold your
tongue, we are going to have a spree to-night, and no
one is going to injure you." At break of day next
ra,rning he heard some one groaning outside the booth.
He went out, and saw Bartlett lying on the ground with
his face covered with blood. John Higgs, who was at
the fair, swore that the, prisoner and three others
knocked him down and robbed him. In his cress-exa..
mination he swore that he had never said he did not
know who had robbed him. Other persons swore' that
they saw Britton and Burton together at the fair that
night. It then appeared that in September list a person
who had formerly resided in Somersetshire, and is now
a sergeant in the London police, saw the prisoner at
Smithfield market, and gave such information that the
prisoner was apprehended at Walton' in Leicestershire,
at a fair on the 19th of September. When told of the
charge the prisoner said he had nothing to do with it,
that it must be a mistake, Burton must be the man, and
the names Burton and Britton were very similar. 7. he
prisoner had 118/. in his pocket, and some horses. To
another constable the prisoner said it was a bad job. He
was at the fair, but had taken no part in the affair ; and
that, if he luid thought he should have come to this, he
would have put a rope round his neek.
For the prisoner witnesses were called, some of whom
stated that they saw the row, and that Britton had no-
thing to do with it. Another said that Bartlett had fre.
quently told him that be did not know who had struck
him, and that the witness Higgs had said he did not
know who had robbed him. Other witnesses were called,
who said they would not believe Lapstone on his oath.
Several persons from Leicestershire, Staines, New-
bury, and London, were called, who had known the pri-
soner for fifteen years, and they gave him a most excel-
lent character.

The Learned JUDGE having summed up sith grey
minuteness.

The jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—Bury &Edmund's, Aprils.
(Before Mr. Justice Perrzsos.)
Frederick Borley was indicted for setting fire to a
building in the occupation of Mary, Rust. The first
count of the indictment described the building as. an out-
house, the second as a warehouse.
Mr. O'Malley was counsel for the prosecution, and
Mr. Crouch for the defence. .
It appeared that the building which the prisoner. was
accused of setting on fire stood in a hop-ground belong-
ing to the prosecutrix, and could be seen from her house,
but it was unconnected with any of the buildings at-
tached to the house. It was open on the lower floor,
which was used by the hop-pickers employed by the
prosecutrix, and also for the stowing away of hops in
their green state until they became fit for drying in the
hop-oast. The chamber above the picking-room was
covered in on all sides, and was used for laying up the
hop-skips and the various tools in use in the hop busi-
ness. No hops in a dried or marketable state were kept
in any part cf the building.
Mr. Justice Pe'rrEsost was of opinion that the pe•
stroyed building was neither an outhouse nor a ware:
house within the meaning of the statute on which the
prisoner was indicted. With respect to the former term,
it had long been settled that in order to constitute an
outhouse, it must be connected with a dwelling-house,
and in some respects parcel of it. This building was a
solitary and unconnected erection, and could not be
called an outhouse within the meaning of the Act of
Parliament on which this indictment was framed. Nei-
ther was it a "warehouse ;". to come under that deno-
mination, the building must be such as factors or traders
kept their goods in for sale, and where customers went
for the purpose of viewing them, and not such as were
used for the safe-keeping of goods merely. In this case
the building was not even used for the safe-keeping of
goods. He was therefore of opinion that the prisoner
must be acquitted.
The jury accordingly found the prisoner Not guilty.
(Before Mr. Sergeant BYLES.
Arthur Hammond and Robert Berry were indicted for
feloniously shooting at Thomas Firmin, with intent to
do him some grievous bodily ,harm, or with intent to
resist their lawful apprehension.
Mr. Sanders conducted the prosecution, Mr. Gunning
defended Hammond, and Beery was his own counsel.
The prosecutor is under-gamekeeper to Mr. Browning,
who hires the right .of shooting in an extensive wood
called the Hyde, near Bury, of which Sir Thomas Gage
is the owner, and a Mr. Brown the occupier. The
prisoners are labourers living in Bury, whose labours,
however, appear to be pursued by night !either 'than
by day, being persons somewhat. given to the of-
fence of poaching. The prosecutor. and one Taylor
were watching in the Hyde in the night between the 6th
and 7th January, and about the hour of two in the Morn-
ing of the 7th they saw two men in the wood, one of
whom was armed with a gun ; this man was the prisoner
Berry—the other was sworn to be Hammond. The
keeper pursued the prisoners, and when about sixty
yards off them, Firmin fell down, whereupon the pri-
soners began to stone his assistant, Taylor. Taylor
called out to the prosecutor, " They are stoning me ;" to
which the prosecutor replied, " Let them, I'll stop 'em."
The prosecutor had by this time risen from the ground,
and went to the assistance of his companion, whereupon
the prisoners ran away, pursued by the gamekeepers.
When the respective parties were within six or seven
yards of each other, Berry turned round, levelled his gun
at the body of Firmin, and fired it off. Taylor swore
to having seen the wadding fly from the gun alight, and
also having heard something like shot " fly from the
gun past him.' Hammond was at this time sev, nor eight
yards in advance of Berry and running away, and he
continued to run as fast as his legs could carry him, not
taking any part in the actual assault on the prosecutor.
As soon as the gun had been fired Taylor came up and
said to Berry, " Why, you villain, you would have shot
that man if you could," and forthwith he struck Berry
'nine smart blows on the head and felled him, after which
he was secured.
Mr. GUNNING, for the prisoner Hammond, submitted
that there was no evidence to go to the jury against his
client. It might, p,rhaps, be conceded that they were
in the wood with a common intent to take game, but it
by no means followed that they. had a common purpose
to resist whoever might oppose them. Indeed, at the
time the prisoner Berry fired the gun, Hammond was
some yards in advance, and there was no evidence to
show that he saw it fired, or was aware of Berry's in=
tention to fire ; he was running away at the time, and
did not use any word whatceer *to- encourage his coin-
paniou.to
fire.
The Learned JUDGE" took the same view of the case,
and directed him to be acquitted. In summing up the
evidence, his Lordship left two questions to the jury, the
first being whether Berry fired the gun with the intent
charged in the first count, namely, to do the prosecutor
some grievous bodily harm ; and if he did not, then,
secondly, whether he fired with intent to resist his law.
ful apprehension ? With respect to the first, they would
observe that the prosecutor did not, in fact, receive any
injury, and there was no distinct proof that the gun was
loaded with anything but powder and wadding, and the
keepers had both spoken to the fact of the report being
a " very faint" one, which tended to show that the gun
did not contain a lull charge. On the second question,
he was of opinion that the prosecutor had no right to
apprehend the prisoner. Ile was under-gamekeeper to
Air. Browning, but that gentleman had only the right of
shooting in the Hyde. He was neither the Owner nor
the occupier, nor was he the lord of the manor. That
being so, he was of opinion that the prisoner could not
be convicted on the second count, as his apprehension by
the prosecutor, had it been effected, would not have b-en
" lawful." But, although that were so. and altheugh
Berry might not have intended to do any grievous bodily
harm to the precutor, still the firing of the gun at him
was an illegal act, and amounted to an assault, and he
might be convicted of that offence.
The jury acquired Hammond, and found Berry
guilty of an assault only, and he thereupon received sen-
tence of six months' in:prisonment.
Saturday, April 6.
Leech Body was indicted fer setting fire to several
barns and stacks of corn, the property of John Gaylord.
Mr. Prendergast and Mr. O'Malley prosecuted, and
Mr. Dasent defended the prisoner.
The prosecutor is a tenant of the Duke of Grafton,
under whom he occupies a large farm, at Rymer's-point,
in the parish of Trows:on. The prisoner. in November
last, was a labourer in the parish of Sapston, a village;
distant four miles from Trovtston. He had been some
weeks absent until the night of Sunday, the 19th of
November, when he was seen in-the parish of Ingham,
which adjoins Trowston. He there overtook on the road
one James Rosier, of whom he inquired the way to
ltymet's-point, saying "he had very particular business
to transact there with Mr. Gayford." He was told the
ay, and continued to walk on with Rosier. As they
jogged along, the prisoner said to his companion "I'll
tell you w hat,
old friend, there'll be a fine fire to-night
at old Gayford's ; a regular flare-up, I may say." .He
also observed, "Them stacks," pointing to some which
stoodmake a fine blaze, they
by the wayside, " woul
twhoeuGldr.
Griffin nitpotsibieliret-hheonuslee!
at.
thii
nu);
haatiind, hwehsevraes
hen repeatedly
seen at
asked the way to Rymer's.point, and said he would give
any man 2s. that e ould show him the way. (This he
appears to hare said in ord.r to avert suspicion, as he
Lad formerly worked for Mr. Gaylord at Rymer's-point,
and knew the way intimately.) He also pulled out a
pair alight shoes, and remarked " they were his shoes

-