The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-16 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Lancaster, Aug. 13.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
Thomas Hitchon was indicted for a burglary in the
house of John Bulcock, at Burnley, on the 7th of May last.
Mr. Thomson appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Wil-
kins for the defence.

It appeared that, on the evening in question, after Mr.
Bulcock had shut up his house, and was about retiring
to rest, he received a visit from four of the police, who
informed him that they had reason to believe that an
attempt would be made to rob his house that night.
The officers were accordingly disposed so as to keep
R etch in the different parts of the house. Two were
posted at the back, and two in front in one of the par-
lours. The lights were extinguished, and the house pre-
sented the usual appearance of the inmates having re-
tired to rest. Matters had remained in this way for
some hours, when the officers who were on the watch in
front heard some one quietly forcing the catch of one of
the windows in a room at the other side of the hall.
Some one appeared to have effected an entrance, for
footsteps, as of a person without his shoes, were almost
immediately heard in the hall. The noise of lighting a
lucifer match was then heard, and the front door was
stealthily opened, when a second party was heard to
enter. • The • robbers approached the door of the room
where the officers were lying perdu, and tried to open
the door, but one of the officers pressed down the latch,
and prevented their entrance. Voices were then heard
in consultation as to the course to be taken, and while
they were doubting whether they should force
the door or go on to the kitchen, the officers rushed
out upon them. The light was immediately extinguished
in the scuffle which ensued, but one of the officers
seizing both the intruders, pinned them against the
wall. He was, however, unfortunately attacked by his
fellow officer, who, in the dark, mistook him for one of
the robbers, and the result of the contest was, that one
of them escaped, having struck his captor a severe blow
with a small crowbar, and wounded him in the head with
a chisel, which was subsequently found in the hall, and
which seemed, from the marks on the window, to have
been the instrument used in effecting an entrance. One
of the robbers, however, remained in custody, and proved
to be the prisoner at the bar. His face was blackened,
and he was without hat or shoes. Near him, however,
was found a hat belonging to one of the officers, which
had been left in another part of the house. On finding
that escape was impossible, he offered to show the officers
where his hat and shoes were, and finally took the
officers to the place where he had put them before en-
tering the house. A hat was found which he admitted
to be his, but the shoes he said had been changed, and
those left belonged, he alleged, to one Smith Hargreaves,
who had been his companion in the attempted robbery.
Before the magistrates the prisoner made the following
statement :—A chap came to me on Monday, and said
he had seen some money put in a drawer in this house,
and wanted me to go with him that night. I promised
him I would go, but I did not go near him on Monday
night. On Tuesday he came to me again,.and I had got
some drink, and he persuaded me to go with him, and
when we got part of the road I stopped and would not
go further. He called me a soft fool, and said I had no
occasion to go into the house. When we got to the
place he lifted the window shutter up, and went in and
opened the front door and called me in. He lighted a
candle and went into a room, but there was no furniture
in the room where the money should have been. He
then said, "Let us go forward," and we went through
the kitchen. Five men came up and seized me. The
other man passed them, and went away. They call the
man Smith.

It appeared frona the other evidence in the cause that
one Smith Hargreaves had on a former occasion given
information to the police of a burglary, and had been a
witness for the prosecution. None of the officers exa-
mined were able to say from what source the information
of the robbery was received on the present occasion. It
had been given to the superintendent, from whom they
received their orders.

The prisoner was found Guilty.
His LORDSHIP observed that he thought the 'police
had much better have their eyes on the conduct of this
Smith Hargreaves, than their ears open to his communi-
cations.

James Hindle was indicted for the manslaughter of
Thomas Lomax.

Mr. Hulton conducted the prosecution. The prisoner
was defended by Mr. Drinkwater.
It appears that the prisoner is a getter of coal at a col-
liery at Oswaldtwisle, and the deceased was a drawer to
him. On the 9th day of May last, the deceased com-
plained of pains in the arms, and of lumps under his
armpits, which hurt him when he worked. The prisoner
was annoyed at his not getting on with his work, and,
after some angry words, he gave the deceased a push,
which threw him against one of the tubs used in the col-
liery. He fell with his right side on the edge, and com-
plained of being hurt. On going home in the evening he
suffered much from pain in his side. He had some me-
dicine, threw up some blood, and was for a day or so
confined to his bed. He recovered, however, so far as to
resume his work, and for four or five weeks attended his
duties at the pit as usual. He was then, however, at-
tacked with inflammation at the place where he had re-
ceived the blow ; it resulted in mortification, which ter-
minated his life. The prisoner, it appeared, displayed
much feeling on the occasion, and expressed much regret
at having struck the deceased, saying, that when people
were angry they often struck harder than they intended.
It did not, however, very clearly appear that the subse-
quent inflammation was traceable to the injury sustained
by the act of the prisoner.—He was acquitted.
Amos Hampson, John Wood, and Edward Stanley,
' were indicted, the two former for robbery, and the latter
for receiving, with a guilty knowledge, a watch, the pro-
duce of such robbery.
Mr. Hutton conducted the prosecution ; Mr. James
appeared for the prisoners Hampson and Stanley.
The two persons accused of the robbery are privates
in the 6th Regiment of Foot, and the party indicted as
receiver is a stripe-sergeant in the same regiment.
It appeared from the statement of the prosecutor, a
Mr. William Duncan, that on the 14th of June last he
was on a visit at Preston, to which town he had before
that time been a stranger. He remained at the Bull Inn
until a little after twelve o'clock, when he left for the
purpose of going to Butler-street. He, however, was
somewhat intoxicated, and taking the wrong turn on
leaving the inn, became rather bewildered. He met,
however, three soldiers, and a man in plain clothes, of
whom he asked his way. They went some distance
with him in the direction, as they said, of Butler-street,
and on the way he told them if they could find a house
open he would treat them to a glass for their civility.
They
Black
tTooigkehr i;mb toot at
hpouibnlmica-hteosurs pc-house
fcuas lelded, tohoe bpeenl itehvee dd,
otohre,
saasm ito ws
tarse
ept,a s
andtt twelve etlhvee
po' crolzk. ut
rTt They
hen returnedperceiv ed along
that
at
onthee
of the soldiers and the civilian had gone away. The
other two soldiers accompanied him until he got to a
pice of waste ground, when one of them tripped him up,
and kneeling on his breast, he, assisted by the other,
rifled the pockets of the prosecutor, taking from him his
watch and about 255. in silver. The prosecutor was not
able to identify either of the prisoners as the parties
who had robbed him, though he thought that Hampson
was like one of the men. _ _

The prisoners, it appeared, with a number of their