The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-01 00:00:00

TTIE -RUN, LONDON, MO DAY F.VENVI4G, JANUARY 1, 044.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

WINTErt ASSIZES

on the side nearest to which the keepers stood by the
road leading from Alsager's bank to Sladdenhill, which
alone separated them from the hedge in which was the
rail-place adverted to. About two o'clock in the morn-
ing of the 4th of August Vaughan observed two men
coming up the road from the direction of Alsager's bank,
who deliberately proceeded to fix a purse-net across the
gap. No sooner had they done so than Vaughan and
Beech issued from their place of concealment, and ad-
vanced towards the poachers, who were sworn to by
Vaughan as being the two prisoners at the bar. At this
moment Beech had round him a leathern belt, from
which hung a cutlass, and Vaughan was only. armed
with a life-preserver, fastened to his right wrist by a
thong, he having left his double-barreled gun, which
was loaded, leaning against a tree in the coppice. The
moment the keepers were seen by the prisoners, a rush
was made at them by the latter, and Oakes, according to
Vaughan's testimony, clubbing a gun, he had in his hand
raised it, and felled both him and Beech to the ground
with the butt. A struggle ensued between the four, as
soon as the two keepers rose, the one indicated as Spils-
bury and Vaughan fighting together, while Beech and
the other, during the contest, got into the field on the
opposite side of the road to the plantation, and out of
Vaughan's sight. What occurred between them, there-
fore, could not precisely be ascertained. Vaughan was
found lying insensible on the ground by a man named
Penlington. In order to connect the prisoners more closely
with the horrible transaction," a number of witnesses
were called, the aggregate of whose testimony raised an
amount of evidence against them which seemed almost
insurmountable. It was distinctly shown that Oakes
was in company with two other men on the previous
evening, and was going in the direction of Mr. Heath-
cote's land. Several other persons saw both him and
Spilsbury, about two hours after the murder, coining
from the spot where it had been committed, and laden
with hares. Their conduct also on many occasions after
they were in custody tended to lead to the inference of
their guilt. They were both notorious poachers ; Oakes
had been taken up by Beech for poaching in February
last, and had repeatedly uttered threats of vengeance
against the deceased ; and some observations which they
made while attending the inquest were proved as mili-
tating strongly against the supposition of their innocence.
Mr. YARDLEY, in an able and powerful address, con-
tended on the part of the prisoners, that Vaughan must
have been unintentionally mistaken about Oakes ' • that,
knowing him from previous facts to be a notoriously bad
character, and an habitual poacher, he too hastily con-
cluded that he was his assailant in this instance. The
Learned Counsel further suggested, that all the other
circumstances, as interpreted by the prosecution, were
perfectly reconcilable with the hypothesis submitted by
the prisoners on their own behalf. It was true that they
were out poaching on the fatal night, and he would not
deny that they had even been on Mr. Heathcote's land ;
but that supposition was compatible with their inno-
cence, as were all the minor occurrences that had been
detailed, which might have taken place, but which lite-
rally amounted to nothing if Vaughan were mistaken in
his evidence. The jury would, moreover, bear in mind
that the conduct of the two men was hardly reconcilable
with that of men guilty of murder ; for it could scarcely
be conceived that human beings, however depraved, could
be so utterly lost to all sense of decency, and every re-
gard for their own security, as to ° c.. 0 on poaching for
some hours after the perpetration of a barbarous murder.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to analyse the
whole of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Crown,
and to show that there was a sufficient amount of doubt
raised by some points which appeared upon the investi-
gation of the case (and which it is unnecessary here to
enumerate) in favour of the men at the bar to justify tke
jury in returning a verdict of acquittal.
Mr. Baron ROLFE, upon the close of this address,
summed up in a most lucid and perspicuous manner, and
the jury, after consulting about a quarter of an hour,
found a verdict of Not Guilty as to both prisoners.
The trial lasted upwards of ten hours, and the details
were listened to with the most patient attention by a
densely-crowded Court.
The prisoners had also been arraigned on another in-
dictment, in which Spilsbury was charged with stabbing
and wounding. Vaughan, with intent to kill and murder
him, and Oakes was chargedl with aiding and assisting

NORTHERN CIRCUIT, Liverpoo4 Dec. 29.

FROM THE EVENING PA't.EAS OF SATURDAY.
GLOBE.—The Standard of last evening has a
letter from Mr. Abel Heywood, a tradesman of Man-
chester, in which the most formal and circumstantial
contradiction is given to the atrocious calumny first
broached by Mr. Ferrand, and endorsed and propa-
gated by the Standard, that " one of their members
(meaning the Anti-Corn-law League), at a private
meeting of their body in Manchester, declared that he
was prepared to subscribe to a fund for the purpose of
procuring the assassination of Sir Robert Peel."
Mr. Heywood gives the most ample proof of the
utter groundlesness of the statement, in a plain,
unvarnished tale—" a fair and true version of the
whole affair :—"
" In July, 1842, a deputation from the body of shop-
keepers in this town was appointed to go to London,
and lay before Sir Robert Peel the then distressed con-
dition of great numbers of their body. The. deputa-
tion were unsuccessful in obtaining an interview with
Sir Robert, but they succeeded with Lord Ripon, Lord
Ashley, and several others, before whom they laid their
whole case.
" On their return, a public meeting, convened by ad-
vertisement, was called and held in the large room at the
Corn Exchange Inn, to receive their report. At that
meeting, and nut at a private one, I deplored the alarm-
ing discontent which existed, not only amongst the
working classes, who were suffering very severely, but
amongst a class of men (shopkeepers) who, upon all
occasions, bad been ready to lend their assistance to the
authorities in the preservation of peace and order.
"To illustrate and explain more positively what I
meant, I stated, that upon asking a shopkeeper for a
donation towards the expenses of the deputation to Lon-
don, he replied, that he would not object to subscribe
to a fund for the purpose of shooting Sir Robert Peel."
When we apply the term " formal" to this contra-
diction of the calumny alluded to, it will be seen that
the phrase is inadequate to express the absolute demo-
lition of Mr. , Ferrand's fabrication,•-which it effects.
The writer of the letter is the very individual to whom
the expression, so ingeniously perverted to the pur-
poses of falsehood, was addressed. It was by him re-
peated, not at a private meeting, but at "a public
meeting (of the League) convened by advertisement."
Mr. Heywood concludes his letter in the Standard
with these words :—" This, Sir, is a plain statement
of the case ; and was no more connected with the
League than you are." No one not absolutely
blinded by private fury and a wish for revenge, ever
doubted for a moment but that Mr. Ferrand's story—
supported and vouched for though it was by the
Standard—would turn out to be a mean and despicable
invention—the product of an imagination over which
truth exercises no control, and shame fails to restrain
from the indulgence of the most unscrupulous ex-
cesses. It too seldom happens, however, that the
means of vindicating the reputation of maligned
parties are so promptly' afforded as.in the present
instance. Mr. Heywood's letter leaves no room for
the most ingenious malice to suggest a doubt upon
the subject. The Premier-assassination story of Mr.
Ferrand and the Standard is thereby proved to be an
entire falsehood. It may now be asked, not what
will these worthies, this par nobile, think of them-
selves—they
have long since ceased to feel as ordi-
narily constituted minds would feel under such cir-
cumstances—but what will every honest mind, no
matter what its party predilections may be, think and
say of them f The Standard has, we admit, made
some atonement by publishing Mr. Heywood's letter;
and has thus become the herald of its own shame.
The reparation is, however, in harmony with the
original offence.' The calumny was blazoned forth
with all the aids which conspicuous type, and pro-
minent position on the page, could effect : the
unwearied allusions to, and comments upon, the
alleged assassination plot, were displayed with equal.
pomp of print, that they might attract the eye,
and impress the mind with due horror for the in-
cipient assassins. The letter which confutes the
cherished lie is printed in very small type, and thrust
into an obscure corner. But this is Standard mo-
rality I—another practical exemplification of those
claims to superior honour and conscience in the con-
duct of a public journal, which the Standard is wont
to put forth, with characteristic modesty, in its own
behalf! What atonement Mr. Ferrand will make re-
mains to be seen. Unless he can disprove the facts,
or rail away the effect of Mr. Heywood's letter—
neither of which is likely to be achieved, even by his
proverbial ingenuity and courageous use of the powers
of speech—his future efforts in furtherance of the
cause to which he has devoted' his appropriate mental,
moral, and physical faculties, will be worse than use-
less. He must be content to lie under the imputation
of being what every honourable mind will deem him
to be, 'but which it would disfigure our columns,
without a periphrasis, to describe.
STANDARD.—Mr. Abel Heywood, whose letter
to the Times appeared in yesterday's Standard, is not
an accurate reasoner. Mr. Ferrand had stated, in a
letter'to the Times, that a certain' atrocious proposi-
tion was made at a private meeting of " the League"
at Manchester. No, says Mr. Abel Heywood, the
atrocious proposition in question was not made at the
private meeting of the League, but reported by me at
another meeting—not a meeting of the League,_ co
nomine, though doubtless composed of Leaguers. Now,
every one must see that there is no contradiction here ;
that the witnesses depose to totally different
transactions, and that both may therefore tell the
truth, as we very confidently believe they do.
Mr. Heywood heard the proposition in one place,
Mr. Ferrand's informant in a second, the Rev. Mr.
Bailey heard it in a third, and the Members of the
House of Commons, we may add, heard something
very like it hinted at from the lips of the great
Leaguer himself. Upon a view of the whole matter,
indeed, Mr. Abel Heywood's statement confirms
instead of contradicting the statements of Mr. Fer:
rand ; for Mr. Heywood testifies that what they re-
ferred to was talked about by the persons whose
connexion with the League it is impossible to
doubt, though at the time they did not, perhaps,
sit as Leaguers; the Rev. Mr. Bailey tells a similar
story with reference to What was, we suppose, a
bona fide Leaguers' meeting. The great Leaguer
launches his menace in the House of Commons, evi-
dently pointed in the same direction—proofs that the
minds of the Leaguers were filled with the project,
and proof, therefore, of the great probability that
Mr. Ferrand's informant told nothing but the
truth. There is no jury, we think, which, satisfied
of the separate and distinct declarations of the same
purpose of a conspiracy, made by different members
of the conspiracy at different times and places,
would hesitate to believe an unimpeached witness,
testifying to a fourth declaration of a conspirator
to the same - effect, and more particularly
after the purpose had been (in the attempt)
cruelly realised: A thousand witnesses like Mr.
Heywood will, by their multiplied evidence, only
prove the extent to which the execrable feeling of
which Mr. Drummond was the victim pervaded the
body of the conspirators. It is much, indeed, to be
wished that snore such witnesses as Mr. Abel Hey-
wood may present themselves; perhaps some of them
many enlighten the public as to the party by whom
M'Naghten was prompted. Let us not be misunder-
stood; we have a very bad opinion of every Leaguer
without exception, because we See them all embarked
in a conspiracy which deals out nothing but lies,
slander, and sedition, and tries to take in as much
money as it can get, and which is therefore a treason-
able or a swindling confederation, or both ; but with
all this very-bad opinion of the Leaguers, we are from
saying that every Leaguer is an assassin—strong as
are the testimonies that many Leaguers have sug-
gested assassination. Some Leaguers are merely
greedy oppressors of the poor, some mere harmless
swindlers, and some few, perhaps, simple block-
heals; hut though we arc far from saying that all
Leaguers are assassins, it is, perhaps, not too much
to infer, from the evidence before us, that all who
have a hankering after assassination are either
Leaguers, or likely to became Leaguers. Since the
time of the late Mr. Ings, one of the parties who par-
ticipated in Mr. Thistlewood's mkfortune," as
they call it in Ireland—from the time of Mr. Trims,
who waxed the handle of his knife that he might
operate mare steadily in cutting a Minister's
throat, nobody has talked of summarily
disposing of his fellow-creatures in the same cool
and business dike tone as the Leaguers. These men
Entitle their proposition with the easy freedom from
reserve which men employ in proposing matters of
course, and proposing matters, for the proposition of
which they fear no rebuke, and in effect they appear
to have met with no rebuke. From all we know,
'either the project offered was prosecuted, or, if laid
aside, laid aside solely on the ground of expediency.
No one seems to have thought assassination, abstract-
edly, wrong.

Nicholas Clark, late of Manchester, labourer, was ar-
raigned upon an indictment charging him with the
wilful murder of Catherine Rippingham, otherwise Ca-
therine Clark, by striking and beating her with his hands,
and kicking her with his feet. The prisoner pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Joseph Pollock conducted the prosecution.
In answer to a question from his Lordship, the prisoner
said he was a poor man, and could not afford to employ
counsel, whereupon his Lordship said that Mr. James
had kindly offered to undertake his defence.
Mr.-Pomocx, in stating the case, said the principal
question for the jury would be, whether there seas such
reasonable and immediate provocation as would reduce
the amount of the offence. After stating the circum
stances of the case, and mentioning the fact, that for
three years the deceased bad lived with the prisoner,
and was by some supposed to be his wife, the Learned
Counsel called witnesses.
The particulars of this case have been so recently
given in our columns, in reference to the coroner's
inquest, that it may suffice now to state that
on the 12th ult. the prisoner and the de-
ceased being in the house of a Mrs. Colvin,
he called her out, and immediately afterwards she
ran back into the house followed by the prisoner,
who struck her on the head with his hand, and kicked
her on the neck and breast and left side. On receiving
the kicks on her side, the deceased exclaimed she was
killed. She was put to bed up stairs, and died that day
week. The surgeon who was called in three days after
the injury had been inflicted, was deceived by being told
that the deceased had a cold, and was only informed that
she had been hurt the night before she died. On the
post mortem examination, the surgeon found injuries to
the spleen and liver ; either of which would cause death,
and must have been produced by a violent blow, or kick,
or external pressure.
Mr. JAMES, for the prisoner, contended there was no
evidence of malice, to constitute the offence murder.
Ilis Lordship recapitulated the evidence, and the jury,
after retiring for ten minutes, found the prisoner guilty
of manslaughter. The prisoner was then sentenced to bo
transported for life.
The following priaoners were called up to receive their
sentences :—Roger Horrocks, James Howarth, and Mary
Ann Hulse, co:ivicted of blurglary, were severally sen-
tenced to be transported for ten years.
Charles Booth, Charles Jones, Thomas Hale, James
Bailey, and Henry Mann, who had all pleaded guilty to
the charge of burglary, were sentenced to twelve months'
imprisonment, and hard labour.
John Walker, convicted for highway robbery, to be
imisoned for twelve months to hard labour.
William Slack, convicted of burglary, to be imprisoned
for twelve months to bard labour.
James Francis Bentley and George Allin4on, who had
both pleaded guilty to forgery, were sentenced to be
,transported for ten years.
James Moss Smith, who had pleaded guilty to two in-
dictments, one charging him with embezzlement, and
the other with obtaining money by false pretences, was
sentenced, for the first offence, to be imprisoned for ten
calendar months, and kept to hard labour ; and for the
false pretence, to be imprisoned for three months.
James Newbold, convicted upon his own confession, of
stealing in a dwelling-house, was sentenced to be im-
prisoned for eight calendar months, and kept to hard

labour.
Owen Rooney, convicted of feloniously stabbing
George Seymout, with intent, to do him some grievous
bodily harm, was sentenced 0 be transported for fifteen
years.
John Sullivan, who had pleaded guilty to having
fraudulently incited and procured another person, to be
guilty of the crime of forgery, was sentenced to be im-
prisoned for two sears, and kept to hard labour.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
John Cabrew, a sea-captain, was indicted under the
Merchant Seaman's Act, for unlawfully foreing and
leaving on shore in parts beyond the seas one John Hill,
one of his crew, before the completion of the voyage for
which he was engaged.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Whigham conducted the case for
the prosecution; the prisoner was defended by Mr. James
and Mr. Drinkwater.
The defendant was Captain of the Mediterranean, a
vessel belonging to Mr. T. Tobin, which sailed on an
African voyage in March, 1842, and returned in No-
vember, 1843.
Henry Leatherbarrow stated that he was chief mate of
the Mediterranean. At Ambreeze, on the coast of
Africa, they shipped a new hand named John Hill, from
the frigate Madagascar. Believed it was in July, 1842.
About three days before the 6th of December, Hill was
put in irons, and kept in irons until that day, when he
was seized up the main rigging and flogged, and imme-
diately afterwards was ordered to get his traps ready to
go ashore. This was by the captain, who ordered the
Kroo-boys to get the canoe ready, and the captain or-
dered him to get into the canoe. The canoe returned
with Hill in about an hour and a half, saying the beach
was so bad they could not land him, the surf ran too
high. One of the Kruo-men came on board, and went
down into the cabin with the captain. His name was
" Bottle of Beer." The. Kroo-men got into the canoe
again, and they shoved off, the captain telling them :o
land him, and the canoe returned the following morning
without Will. The vessel was then off Chillungo. Should
say Hill went ashore against his. will.
Cross-examined.—The defendant had a factory there,
and at several places beside. They were stations where
he kept his goods, and a person to take care of them.
Hill was a very disorderly sailor. The reason of his
being put in irons was in consequence of his attempting
to take away a canoe, and to run away from the ship.
That was on the 2d of December, in the night. He
was put in irons the following morning. Did not hear
him say he would not do any work. He was put into
irons about eight o'clock in the morning ; but it is
stated to be at eight o'clock in the evening in the log.
That and .many other entries made by witness, were not
true.. Witness swears he did not hear any one ask him
to return to work, and he would be taken out of irons.
Under the circumstances, did not think it his duty to ask
him to return to work. Hill refused to work in Sep-
tember, whilst witness and the captain were at dinner.
He used very abusive language, and said he would not
do any more work on board the vessel. On his return
home witness was discharged by the captain, as he said,
for misconduct. Baden and Russell are not here as wit-
nesses. They were never punished during the voyage.
All the rest of the witnesses in attendance, except
Brown, were punished. Hill was flogged with a bitch
or heather rod. Ile had sixty strokes, and was asked
about every dozen strokes wheLher he would return to
cr sabout e
work. He said, it was no use going to work for he
should get no wages. We cruised
u t the e
a coast
d
fore
twelve months, andwere frequently
Chillongo. There were six men from our ship taken
on board a man-of-war, and we received four from that
vessel, only. one of whom was fit for the helm. Believed
there was a town about three miles from where Hill was
put on shore. Told the captain there would be a day
of reckoning.
Other witnesses gave a similar account of the manner
in which 11111 was put on shore.
Henry Hutchins, a black man, the steward of the
vessel, deposed to Hill coining to the factory at Loango,
of which the witness was in charge, two days after he
was put on shore in a state of exhaustion ; he remained
two or three days, and was carried off by an American
on hoard her Majesty's inati-of- war Rapid. When the
Mediteranetin came to Loango the captain came on
shore and asked after llill, and was told that he had
gone on board the Rapid. Loango is about thirty miles
from Chillongo.
Mr. James then proceeded to address the jury for the
defence. It ,was clear the captain had a mutinous and
worthless crew to deal with, and therefore it became his
duty to the owner of the ship to resort to flogging, which
he was perfectly justified in doing, but it did not appear
that there was any cruelty in the flogging, as it was
merely with a birch rod. Ile remarked upon the con-
tradictions in the evidence, which he contended left the
case in such doubt as the jury could not safely convict.
A number of witnesses were called to the defendant's
character.
His Lt)RDSHIP then summed up the case. After
stating the nature of the indictment, he said there were
two questions for the consideration of the jury—first,
whether the defendant did force and leave behind one
of his crew ? and next, whether he did so before the
completion of the voyage for which he was engaged?
The jury retired, and, after being in consultation
about ten minutes, pronounced the prisoner Guilty.
Ilis LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to be impri-
soned six calendar months.
A few more cases, of no public interest, were disposed
of, and closed the business of the assizes.

him.
In reply to questions from his Lordship, Mr. CORBETT
said that as the evidence to support that indictment
would be the same as in the last case, and as he con-
cludedthat the jury were of opinion that Vaughan had
been mistaken, he should not proceed with that indict-
ment.
His LORDSHIP concurred !with Mr. Corbett; and, no
evidence being offered on this indictment, a verdict of
Not Guilty was recorded.

_ SOUTH WALES.--Carmarthen, Dec. 30.
THE REBECCAITES.—John Jones, alias Shoni-scybor-
fuwr, David Davies, alias Dai y Cantwr, Win. Walters,
and 'hainas Morris, charged with a riot at Spudder's
Bridge, on the Bth of September last, were placed at the
bar to take their trial for the misdemeanor. They were
also charged with feloniously demolishing a toll-house.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose, and stated that for
the misdemeanor he should enter a nolle prosequi as to
John Jones, David Davies, and William Walters.
Thomas Morris, the other prisoner, was then charged
with the misdemeanor, and he pleaded guilty.,
The ATTORNEY-6 ENERAL said, that from what he
had heard the prisoner was in part compelled to join in
the riot ; and he should be satisfied if he were to enter
into his own recognisances to appear and receive the
judgment of the Court, whenever called upon, and be of
good behaviour in the meantime.
lie was bound over in the sum of 501. to appear, and
was then discharged.
The case of John Jones, David Davies, William
Walters, and Thomas Morris, for feloniously demolish-
ing the Spudders' Bridge Gate, came-on next.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should enter a nolle
prosequi as against the two last-named prisoners. The
other two were then arraigned, and pleaded Guilty.
Mr. LLOYD HALL, who appeared for the prisoner
Jones, said that the prisoner was anxious to express his
contrition for the offence. Of course he could not ex-
pect mercy, but- if the tear of mercy would blot out a
few years of the punishment allotted to him, he was
confident, from what he knew of the head and heart of
her Majesty's Attorney-General, that his eye would
shed that tear.
Sentence on the prisoners was &fold..

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.
Mr, Bush? idge, the landlord of the Robin Heod public-
house, in Robin Hood-court, Shoe-lane, Fleet-street,
appeared, in company with Mr. Duncombe, the solicitor,
before Mr. Alderman Challis and Sir James Duke, to
answer a charge laid by the police for unlawfully and
knowingly permitting persons of notorious bad character
—to wit, thieves, &c.—to assemble and meet togther in
his house on the night of the 14th inst., contrary to the
tenour of his license, and against the Statute. He
pleaded not guilty.
The constable who laid the information, George Ham,
No. 205, stated that on the day mentioned in the sum-
mons, at about midnight, he went into the Robin Hood,
and in the tap-room found nearly twenty persons assem-
bled. Amongst them he recognised eight notorious
thieves, namely, six men and two females. Five of them
he knew had been convicted. He saw the defendant at
the bar, and told him he should summons him for having
improper persons in his house. The defendant knew
what he (witness) meant, he having laid au information
against him for a similar offence some months since.
Sir JAMES DUKE (to the officer)—You have stated
that you knew them to be notorious thieves. Do you
know their names? Witness—Yes, Sir, I do.
Sir JAMES DUKE—Then name them. Witness—They
are called the " Piggott's Gang."

Sir JAMES not an answer to my ques-
tion. Witness—Their names I know to be Williatn
Piggott, Hugh Christ, John Luton, Little Old Man, and
Cavener.

Sir JAMES DVKE—What were they convicted for ?
Witness—Some were convicted at the Old Bailey.
Sir JAMES DUKE—Were you in the Court at • the
time ? Witness—l was not. '

Sir JAMES DUKE —How long ago is it since the con-
viction took place? Witness—l cannot tell.
Sir JAMES DUKE—Have you made any inquiries of
the proper authorities, or obtained a copy ofk any official
document to prove to the Magistrates that these persons
are convicted thieves? Witness—l have not, Sir.

Sir JAMES Duxv..—Have you any witnesses to call to
prove that they are convicted thieves ? Witness—
No, I have not.

Mr. Duricomnu (the defendant's solicitor)—Then
where did you obtain your information from ? Witness
—A brother constable told me.
Mr. DUNVOMBE—I thought so ; and is he here ?
Witness—No, he is not.—(A laugh).
Sir JAMES DUKE (with much surprise)—Then how do
you expect we can go into the case, upon the wholesale
manner in which you have brought it into Court ? For
my part, I will never decide upon such evidence.
Mr. Alderman CHALLIS—Nor will I. You ought to
have brought proof before us that these parties were
characters who had been tried and convicted. Your
statement amounts only to hearsay.
The defendant said he used every precaution in his
power to prevent bad characters entering his house ;
respecting the man Piggott, whom the officer had spoken
of as being a thief, he could positively state, that if he
had been convicted, it had not been during the last ten
years.
Sir JAMES DUKE and Mr. Alderman CHALLIS dis-
missed the summons ; but cautioned the defendant to
be careful for the future, otherwise the license of his
house would be endangered.
CLERKENWELL.

WESTERN CIRCUIT, Winchester, Dec. 30.
Win. Blake and Daniel Bacon were indicted for as-
saulting and rubbing Benjamin Twitchin on the high-
way, on the 17th of July last.
Mr. St. John conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Saunders and Mr. Rawlinson defended the prisoners.
Without any evidence being called for the defence the
jury acquitted the prisoners.
John Philippa was indicted for cutting and wounding
Richard llaynes, a
policeman, at Gosport, with infant to
`murder him.

Mr. Poulden conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Missing appeared for the prisoner, who was found guilty
of the assault, with
intent to do some grievous bodily
harm, and transported for 15 years.
The business of the assizes concluded on Saturday
morning.

- - -
CRUEL TREATMENT 'Or THE HOLYHEAD AND CAR•
NARVON MAIL Omen lionsEs.—Mr. Thomas, secretary
to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, brought heforp the magistrates at Abergele,
three very gross cases of this description. John Daven-
port, Esq., of Vaenol, Carnarvonshire, who had written
to the Society on the subject, deposed to the wretched
condition of the , horses employed in the Carnarvon
mail to Chester, and ftlAo in the Carnavon day mail.
The horses were all dreadffilly galled, and quite
unfit for work. 'rho third complaint was proved by
Mr. Thomas himself, with regard to the Holyhead
mail. The mtigistrateti convicted each of the drivers,
and ordered them to pay a fine of 40s. and lOs. costs
each, or to be imprisoned 14 days. The drivers all ad-
mitted the charge, and said they were obliged to flog
the liCirSP3 MAO 110111e1Tiftlilh in order to be up to time,
the poor animals were so overworked, tureen, the
contractor, expressed
.his regret that such serious cause
of complaint should have existed, and said he would pay
the penalties and coias,, and take clire.to guard against it
in future. Mr, groti,havin paid 4. los. gr. Thomas
requested the magistrates to name some charity to pay
the moiety of the penalties to ; they directed 31. to be
paid to the Ahergele National School, and the remainder
as directed by the Act of Parliament.--Shieterbury
Chronicle.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, Dec. 29.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
TUE APEDALE MURDER.—On his Lordship resuming
his seat. in the Crown Court this morning, James Oates
and Benjamin Spilsbury, the latter a most ferocious-
looking ruffian, were placed at the bar, charged with
the wilful murder of James Beech, on the 4th of August
last, at the parish of Audley, in this county.
Mr. Corbett am! Mr. Kinnersley conducted the pro-
secution ; Mr. Yardley and Mr. lluddlcstono appeared
for the defence. _ _

John Gibson, a decently-attired young man, was
charged by Charles Gibson, his brother, residing in
Francis-place, Holloway, with having assaulted and
wounded him under the following circumstances :
Before the prosecutor was sworn, the tno her of the
prosecutor and defendant, a respectable looking elderly
woman, who was exceedingly affected, addressing the
Magis'rate said, that the quarrel between the parties
was of a very trifling nature, and they felt desirous of
arranging the matter amicably, without entering into
the exposure attendant on a prosecution.
Mr. GREENWOOD thought, as they were brothers, that
would be the wisest course to adopt in the case.
Prosecutor—But he has stabbed me, and inflicted
wounds. I am willing to forego a prosecution, but I
shall require him to put in heavy bail to keep the peace
towards me. I do not wish him to be punished if he
does so.

The murder which formed the subject of the present
inresti..ation was committed on the morning of the 4th
of Dist August, upon the land of Mr. B. E. Heathcote,
at Apedale-hall, near Newcastle, under the following
circumstances

The neighbourhood of Mr. Heathcote's estate was, as
it seems, unfortunately much infested with poachers,
whose continual nightly
depredations have latterly been
carried on to a considerable extent. In anticipaion of
a visit from some characters of this description. Mr.
Heathoote's head keeper, James Vaughan, accompanied
by James Beech, a constable, stationed themselves in a
coppice about 250 yards from the hall, from which spot
they could command a view of a " run " in an opposite
hedge, through which hares were in the habit of conti-
nually passing. The plantation where the keepers had
taken their stand consisted of young oaks, fir trees, and
beeches, of about four years' growth, averaging. from
six to nine or ten feet in height, and Ina skirted

Mr. GREENWOOD-If you require him to find bail, I
am bound to hear the evidence against him, to see
whether I shall be justified inn ordering him to find sureties.
The mother was much affected, and taken into a sepa-
rate apartment.
The prosecutor deposed that on Thursday last the de-
fendant came to his mother's house ; and where he
(witness) resided with her, and asked for a loan of two
sovereigns. Witness refused to let him have then; on

Dispatches were sent off from the Colonial-office, on
Saturday evening, for the Governor of Ceylon, and for
the Lord liish Commissioner of the lonian Islands.