The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-17 00:00:00

YIMLzIND CIRC U IT.— No, tlrvton, July 16.

, -
CROWN COURT.—( Before Lord Chief Baton Ptn,Locx.)
The only case of interest which occurred was the trial of two
men, named Om Julyan and Freeman Starsmore, charged
with having aided and assisted one Thomas Russell in wound-
ing and causing bodily injury to Solomon Rawson, with the
butt-end of a gun, with intent to murder him.
This case derived its interest from the reference made to it
in the Chief Baron's charge to the grand jury, and the very
peculiar circumstances in which the prisoner Julyan, by his
own statements, had now placed himself.
Mr. Miller appeared for the prosecution.

The case arose out of one which was tried at the last assizes.
Two men, named Mayes and King, were charged with an as-
sault while poaching on the grounds of the Right Hon. V.
Smith, and the former was convicted. Circumstances after-
wards occurred which led the committing magistrate to think
that Mayes was innocent, and he instituted an inquiry upon
the subject. It appeared from the evidence to-day that Julyan,
and indeed Starsmore, had since made confession; of their own
guilt with a view to relieve Mayes from the punishment now
awaiting him for the conviction of the offence.
After hearing the evidence,
The LORD CHIEF BARON directed the acquittal of Julyan,
against whom he said there was no evidence, except indeed as
to his presence in the field, for which he might have been
indicted under the Poaching Act. With regard to Stars-
more, if the jury believed he told the story with a view to
relieve Mayes from punishment, the story being untrue, they
would acquit him. But if they believed the story, and that he
did strike the blow, it would be their duty to convict him.
The jury found both prisoners Not Guilty.
This morning, in consequence of the nature of the cases to
be tried, ladies were excluded from the Court.
John Horn (aged 19), a private in a regiment of infantry,
pleaded " Guilty" to a nameless offence.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, without an accompanying ob-
servation, ordered sentence of death to be recorded.
Richard Pearson (aged 32), was charged with having, at
Piddington, near Northampton, on the 11th of March last,
feloniously assaulted, against her will, Mary Ann Westley, with
the intent to commit a rape. The grand jury had thrown out
the bill for the capital offence.

Mr. Wing conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Miller de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix, a girl not
quite fourteen years of age, that on the morning of the day on
which the assault was said to have been committed she met
the prisoner, who was a dealer in rags and bones, at the
house of a Mrs. Whitbread, who lived in the same village.
She had previously known him, as he was in the habit of
calling at her mother's house in the way of business ; but on
that occasion the prosecutrix told the prisoner he need not
call, as her mother was from home. She afterwards went to
her sister's and thence home. The prisoner shortly after-
wards came to the house and inquired if her mother had any
rags and bones to sell. The prosecutrix replied in the affir-
mative, and sold him some bones, for which she received in
exchange some beads. This occurred in the " house-place,"
behind which was a parlour. The prosecutrix proceeded to
shut the door which communicated between the two apart-
ments, when the prisoner, after asking her if she would like
to be married, pushed her into the parlour, threw her on
the floor, and committed one of the assaults of which she
now complained. Prosecutrix then told him her mother
was coming, when he let her go, and she ran into the house-
place. His basket was then upon the table. She removed
it outside the outer door, when the prisoner pulled her back
into the room, a second time threw her upon the floor, and
committed acts, which, if true, left no doubt of the capital
offence having been committed.
After hearing the details of the charge, as given by the
prosecutrix herself,
The LORD CHIEF BARON said the offence was clearly a
rape, or nothing.
Mr. WINO observed, that if that was his Lordship's opinion,
he did not wish unnecessarily to occupy the public time. The
Court, however, would recollect that the grand jury had
ignored the bill for the capitol offence.
The LORD CHIEF 13mtort said he was aware of it, hut the
Court had nothing to do with that circumstance. The pri-
soner was charged in the present indictment with an as-
sault with the intent to commit a rape. The evidence of the
prosecutrix distinctly and clearly proved the perfect com-
mission of the rape, even according to the old law as it
existed before the present. Whether the prosecutrix resisted
by cries, complaint, or otherwise, was evidence with reference
to a charge of rape, but of little consequence with refer-
ence to a charge of assault with intent to commit, &c. The
capital offence being, according to the evidence of the pro_
secutrix, complete, the present was not the way in which the
prisoner could in law be tried. It had beer, suggested by the
Learned Counsel for the prisoner that the grand jury had
thrown out the bill for the capital offence. No doubt they
had, but why the grand jury did so they did not know, nor
ought they to know, because it was a part of the oath taken by
grand jurors that they should not disclose the " secrets" which
in course of their inquiries were disclosed to them. With the
decision of the grand jury they (the present Court) had nothing
to do. The question was, could they find the prisoner guilty
of the assault for which he was indicted, when, if the evidence
were to be believed, he was guilty of the capital charge?
Whatever wish he (the Chief Baron) might have to uphold
the morals of the country, he did nut think he should be justi •
fled in distorting the law of the land to punish an individual
for one offence, when he was, if guilty at all, clearly guilty of
another. The jury would therefore acquit the prisoner.
In accordance with the directions of the Learned Judge (as
the jury thought), they proceeded to consider their verdict;
and, in consequence of the length of their deliberations, it
began to be generally thought, that in spite of the Judge's
directions, the jury would find the prisoner guilty. At

length—
The LORD CHIEF BARON interfered, and, addressing the
jury, said they had really nothing to consider. He had ex-
plained to them the exact position of the ease, and he was bound
to tell them that in point of law they could not find the prisoner
guilty of the offence for which he was indicted.
The prisoner was then acquitted.
This was the last case on the Crown Side, and the Lord
Chief Baron left the bench about half-past ten o'clock.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—York, July 15.
CROWN SIDE.—( Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
7'honuis Higgins was indicted for a burglary in the house
of John Heslegrove, at Kinsley-green, in the West Riding,
on the 2d day of March last.
Mr. Hall and Mr. Overend conducted the prosecution; the
prisoner was defended by Mr. Blanshard.
The prosecutor, it appeared, is a man of 85 years of age, who
resider alone in a small house at Kinsley-green, at a consider-
able distance from any other habitation. The prisoner, who is
a barber, occasionally called to shave the prosecutor. In one
room of the house the prosecutor kept a box, round which
was passed a chain, secured by a padlock, and which, no
doubt, had the appearance of being the repository of some
it
valuable treasure. Its chief contents, were, however, ap-
peared a few silver spoons, a mourning ring, and a blood-
stone, the latter article especially being one on which the
prosecutor seems to have set considerable value, and which
he was in the habit of showing to his neighbours as a cer-
tain styptic when applied to a wound likely to be dangerous
from excessive bleeding. The prosecutor was very decrepid,
and it was necessary to assist him into the witness-box.
He said, that on the evening in question, about dusk, he
heard some person at his front door. lie was in the habit
of sleeping on the hearth, and was probably asleep that even-
ing, but could not recollect. Ile looked through a hole in
the door, and saw two men there. One of them spoke. He
said they were poachers—men, as the witness expressed it, who
win" game—and they asked to be allowed to come in to
warns themselves, as it was very wet and cold. The witness
said lie knew the voice of the man who spoke—it was the pri-
soner Higgins. Witness said he would not have anything to
do with poachers. They said they would do him no harm if
he would let them in to warm themselves. He was afraid to
let them in, as he saw there were two of them ; and told them
to go to the village at Quarrel, where there were several
houtes, and they would be let in. They stopped awhile at the
front door, and he still refused to let them in, as he was alone.
They then went round to the back door, and forced it open.
They cams in. They forced him down on the bed, and
wrapped him in the bell-clothes, and one of the men called to
the other to get a band and tie it over his fate. They did to.