The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-24 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, March 20.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)
REGINA V. WILLIAM WALKER.
William: Walker, a labouring man, 29 years of age,
was placed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder of
William Sudbury, on the 15th of August last.
Mr. Beadon conducted the case for the Crown; the
prisoner was defended by Mr. J. Neale.
The prisoner and the deceased were both labourers in
the employ of Mr. Thomas Cammack, who keeps the
Bassett Pole Inn, in the parish of Drayton Bassett. On
the afternoon of the day on which the unfortunate affair
Look place, Walker and the deceased were drinking at
this public-house. Walker had a sickle in his hand, and
some dispute arose between him and Sudbury regarding
meat, which the latter accused him of not having paid
him for. Walker went out, but returned soon after, still
Lolding the sickle. The altercation continued, but
Whether the prisoner actually received a blow from the
deceased, as was attempted to be shown for the defence, did
ziot very clearly appear. However, Cammack heard him
suddenly exclaim, " What does he mean ?" and imme-
eiately saw him strike Sudbury on the head with the
sickle. He fell from the blow, and the prisoner made
his escape, but afterwards gave himself up of his own ac-
cord. Sudbury died in about six hours from the effect
of the wound, the point of the sickle having penetrated
th 4 parietal bone, and caused an aperture through which
the brain issued.

Mr. NEALE having addressed the jury for his client,
His LORDSHIP summcd up the evidence, and, after
pointing out the distinction between the crime of murder
and the inferior offence of manslaughter, the jury were
told to consider their verdict. They returned one of
manslaughter, and the prisoner, who bad previously
borne a good character, received from the Learned Judge
the merciful sentence of six months' imprisonment,
~nithout hard labour.

Frederick Gregory, convicted list night of a wholesale
burglary at Stone, :was again tried to-day for a like of-
fence, and found guilty.
Mr. Meteyard prosecuted in both cases.
The prisoner made a most artful defence, but it availed
him little, for he was transported for ten years.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)

HILLIARD V. THE REV. - IDIrEYD.
This action was brought to recover the amount of an
attorney's bill. It did not seem to possess the least in-
terest to any one beyond the parties concerned; but the
trial had not terminated when this report left.
Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Whitmore were for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Godson, Q.C., and Mr. Gray, for the de-
fendant.

With this case the business of the assizes will terminate.
The commission-day at Shrewsbury is fixed for Sa-
turday-.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Huntingdon, March 20.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKS.)
John Wrigldson and William Lewis were indicted for
the manslaughter of William Hall.
Mr. Gunning prosecuted, and Mr. O'Malley defended
Wrightson ; the prisoner Lewis was undefended.
The spot in which the deceased met his death is situ-
ate in a yard loading out of Poorfolks-lane, in the town
of St. Ives. and in which yard Lewis resided with his
mother, and Wrightson, who is a corporal in the Gre-
nadier Guards, at the houso of a widow named Asplin.
On the morning of the 22d of July last, the prisoner
Lewis and the deceased had been drinking, and pro-
ceeded, in a state of intoxication to the yard, when the
deceased knocked at Mrs. Asplin's door, and requested
permission to lodge at her house for the night. This
she refused, in consequence of the state in which he
vas ; and, on his persisting in knocking at her door,
called up the prisoner Wrightson, who proceeded,
half dressed, into the yard. A " scrimmage" then took
place, which was witnessed by several persons from their
windows, and one stated that the deceased was struck
on the head—by whom it did not distinctly appear—and
immediately fell. The voices of the prisoners were
heard during the scuffle. One or two persons went out
to see what was the cause of the disturbance, and found
the deceased on the ground in a state of stupor, and the
prisoner Wrightson was seen to kick him twice, but he
.n.td no shoes on, and seemed to be only endeavouring to
zcuse him.

A surgeon was called, who proved that the death was
eouaad by extravasation of blood on the brain, whieh
might have been produced by a blow or a fall, or brought
on by drunkenness or any great excitement.
,The Learned JUDGE, having inquired whether, in case
c, its having been produced by external violence, death
~ould be instantaneous, and being answered in the
afiirmative,—it appearing that the deceased had spoken
after he was on the ground, he thought the case too
•,19ubtful to allow it to proceed against the prisoners
:nrther, and directed an acquittal.
Thomas Hell was indicted for setting fire to a stack of
haulm, the property of John Bull.
Mr. GUNNING opened the case to the jury for the
prosecution, and, from his statement, it appeared that
the fire in question broke out about nine o'clock in the
evening of the 6th of March, and consumed a large
haulm stack standing in the prosecutor's rick-yard, at
Yelling, in this county. In order to bring home to the
prisoner the perpetration of this outrage, it was proved
that, on the evening of the fire, he had purchased a box
of lucifer matches, and, a few minutes before the fire
broke out he was seen loitering about the prosecutor's
premises. Several witnesses were called to prove that
the prisoner had frequently invited them to set fire to
the prosecutor's premises. On one occasion, he asked
a labourer of the prosecutor's " to go with him, and do
something to be sent out of the country, as transports
lived better than he did;" and the prisoner also stated to
the same person " that he should stop a little while be-
fore the March assizes, then he should not hare to lay
long in prison."
The ease against the prisoner was wound up by the
testimony of Robert King. This witness deposed to his

having had a conversation with the prisoner the night
after the fire, on which occasion he asked him " if he
should not have been sorry to have seen his master's
premises burnt to ashes?" And he replied, " I should
have been sorry if I had broken my muck fork." The
prisoner afterwards said, " If I had done as I had wished
to do, I should have been at home and in bed, and it
would never have happened." lie further stated when
in custody, " that he did not care what became of him ;
they might send him to h— if they pleased."
The Learned JUDGE pointed out to the jury the various
facts on which the guilt or innocence of the man must
turn, and left if for them to say whether or not they en-
tertained a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty;
and the prisoner was sentenced to transportation for
twenty years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

William Boggriss, aged 35, a respectably dressed
person, was charged with obtaining from Messrs. Hanker►
and Co., of Honey-lane-market, a quantity of damask,
♦alue 51. 10s., in the name of Messrs. Cowper and Co.,
of St. Paul's Churchyard, and afterwards disposing of
the same without authority.
Mr. William Husband, a salesman, in the employ of
Ranken and Co., proved that, on Thursday last, the pri-
soner obtained three packages, containing a dozen and a
half of table-cloths, of the value of 51. 10s., which were
delivered to him by witness. Knowing that he had pre-
viously obtained goods for Cowper and Co., the invoice
was made out in the name of that firm by a fellow clerk
named Young.
Mr. H. Nash, 'of the firm of Cowper and Co., St.
Paul's Churchyard, stated that the prisoner had been in
their employ as warehouseman for upwards of seven
years. On Thursday last a " corrected" invoice of the
above goods was sent from Messrs. Ranken and Co., with
a request that the one given to the prisoner might be re-
turned. The prisoner immediately said that the goods
were for himself, but witness's suspicions being aroused
he proceeded to Ranken and Co.'s warehouse, where he
was informed that the prisoner had obtained the goods,
whereupon the latter said he had purchased them for
Mr. Kidd, of Tottenham-court-road, who paid him
31. 12s. for them.
Mr. Andrew Kidd, of 120, Tottenham-court-road, was
then sworn.
Alderman FAREBROTHEIt thought it proper to caution
him against saying anything which might in the slight-
est degree criminate himself, as it was proved he had
purchased the goods at an extraordinary low price.
Mr. Kidd said he wished to tell all he knew of the
transaction. When the prisoner brought the goods to
his shop he stated that they belonged to his cousin, who
lived in Essex, and he wished to dispose of them, as he
was short of money. The goods were purchased for a 12s.
At the request of the solicitor who appeared on behalf
of the prosecution, the prisoner was remanded until
Saturday, when it is expected several other charges of a
like nature will be brought forward against him.
BO IV-STREET.

Two men, named Boyd and Phillips, were charged
with having in their possession a quantity of cambric
handkerchiefs, alleged to have bet n smuggled.
It appeared from the evidence of a person named
Palmer, who described himself as a captain on half-pay,
that he met the prisoner Phillips in Holborn, and in
consequence of certain representations made by him, he
was induced to accompany him to a public-house in that
neighbourhood, where he found the other prisoner Boyd.
That some cambric handkerchiefs were then produced,
which the prisoners represented to be of foreign manu-
facture, and which witness was ultimately induced to
purchase at the price of one sovereign, but afterwards,
having reason to suspect that he had been imposed upon,
he made an excuse to leave the room, to which he after-
wards returned with a policeman, and gave the prisoners
into his custody. The prisoners, In order to convince
him that the articles were of foreign manufacture, gave
him a foreign bill of parcels for them, which they told
him he might keep for his own satisfaction.
Mr. Bayley, an officer of the Customs, attended, and
he stated that he had examined the articles, which were
undoubtedly of British manufacture. He then called the
attentit n of the Court to the Act of Parliament, which
stated that no person was justified in giving any party
into custody for an offence of this description. unless lie
was expressly authorised so to do by the Commissioners
of her Majesty's Customs.
Mr. JARDINE, on reference to the Act, found that
officers on full pay of her Majesty's army, navy, or
marine, had power to detain goods of this description, in
whatever possession they might find them, but all other
persons detecting an offence of the kind must proceed by
information, and subsequent summons, or in the Court
of Exchequer.
Mr. Bayley said he did not know anything of the pro-
secutor in the present case, and at all events he had not
the authority of the officer of Customs to give the pri-
soners into custody.
Mr. JARDINE said that under these circumstances the
prisoners could not be detained, and he ordered them to
be immediately discharged.