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

TFITTRSDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1845.

ritiance of the

CHAIRMAN—WiII you state the number of shares you bad
in the North Kent Railway ?—I had 100.
You purchased 100 ?—Yes.
You still hold them?—Yes ; that is to say, I had 125 ; those
125, it seems, were sold upon a profit of somewhere about half-
a-crown, or it may be ss. a share.
Lord WORSLEY—You mean the whole 125 ?--Yes.
CHAIRMAN—Then you purchased again?—Yes, I purchased
again very recently 100, and those I have.
Did you buy them in the market? I bought them, at least
my friend who managed the transaction for me, bought them in
the market at a high premium.
They were not then bought in your name ?—They were not
bought in my name.
Your name does not appear ?—No, it does not.
Then they are, in fact, held by him at this moment ?—They
are, in fact, at this moment held by him.
Are they held by him in trust for you ?—Yes.
You having paid the deposit and the premium?—He must
have paid the deposit and the premium ; they are held by him
in his hands for me. .

In-pointof fact, up to this time, you have paid nothing ?—I
have paid nothing upon those—they were bought only a few
days ago.
Was that friend any person connected with the Board of Ord-
nance ?—Not in the remotest degree.

Was it any person connected with the promoters of the North
Kent Railway ?—Not in the remotest degree.
Mr. VERNON—What was the date of the first purchase ?—I
cannot state the date,' but it must have been long ago, because
they were purchased at par ; it must have been very early in-
deed, several months ago, and they were sold again at quarter
premium.
CHAIRMAN—Did you pay the deposit and premium upon
those shares ?—Certainly.
Of those shares did you hold the scrip in your hands
should say not—my friend held them in the same way.
Mr. LIDDE•LL—Do yon happen to know when Captain
Boldero sold his North Kent Shares ?—I remember he came
into my room (you remind me of that which perhaps, 1
ought to have stated), and said, "I think this question is
likely to come unpleasantly before Parliament" (he did not
mean before the Board of Ordnance) ; " a question has arisen
about Woolwich-common, which is very likely to come before
Parliament, in which I must take a part, and I shall therefore
sell my shares." He said, " before Parliament," not " before
the Board of Ordnance." I beg you to draw the distinction.
That was early in June ; it was when the difficulty arose about
the tunnel question.
Was it the 9th of June 7—Very early. It appears further,
of which I was not aware at the time, that I told this to my
friend, and he sold my shares also.
The CHAIRMAN—The first one hundred and twenty-five
shares were bought in the open market? All were equally
bought, I apprehend, in the open market ; I can have no doubt
about that, as they were bought at par. I shall be able to
inform myself correctly upon that. The last I know were
bought in the open market, and they were bought at a con-
siderable premium ; that I can speak with certainty to.
Your name appeared in none of these transactions?—No, I
should take fur granted, in none.
Each time they were bought on your account ?—Yes ; not
on a joint account. My name, therefore, would not appear.
If on the papers to-morrow there should be any difference be-
tween them and what I have now stated, I trust I shall not
have any disservice from it. To the accuracy of the papers I
will pledge myself; the precise details I cannot vouch for, but
I will pledge myself that those details shall be forthcoming.
Was the person who was joined with you in the purchase of
those shares in any way engaged in promoting the North Kent
Railway ?—No, in no degree whatever.
Do you feel any objection to mention the name of the party
with whom you were joined in buying those shares ?—I do not
know that I shall have the least objection to-morrow morning
to mention his name.

Captain Henry George Boldero, a Alember of the House,
examined. - -

CuAzamAw—You are the Clerk of the Ordnance ?—latn.

Have you read the petition presented to Parliament by the
South-Eastern Railway Company ?—I have.
Has you attention been particularly drawn to the letter of
Mr. Hicrnett of the 3d of February, 1845?—Decidedly.
Are there any observations or explanations which you wish
to make in reference to that letter ?—The first intimation I
had about that letter was a letter I received from Mr. Fearon.
I received this letter from Mr. Fearon, dated the 26th of June,
1845 I docketed the time at which I received it ; it was half .
past three, but it might have arrived at the office sooner.
The witness read the same, as follows :

" South-Eastern Railway-office, 35 A, Great-George-
street, Westminster, June 26, 1845.
" Sir—l feel it my duty to inform you that under the ad-
vice of counsel a letter addressed by Mr. Hignett, the Solicitor
of the Board to which you are attached, to the late Secretary
of the South• Eastern Railway Company will be produced this
day at the sitting of the Committee on Group A. Your name
is mentioned in this letter, and it will no doubt appear desirable
to you that you should be present.
(Signed) " JOHN P. FE A RON,
" Solicitor to the South-Eastern-Railway
" Company.
" Captain Boldero."

Having received that letter, as I have stated, at half-past
three, I immediately sent doWn stairs for Mr. Hignett to come
up. He was nut in the office, and I left word that he was to
come up immediately he came in. About half-past four I
went into Mr. Bonham's room, and there I found Mr. Hignett.
I had the letter in my 'hand, and I said to Mr. Bonham,
" Here is a curious letter ;" or something of that kind. I
alluded to the letter from Mr. Fearon. Mr. Bonham told me
he had received a similar one. I then said to Mr. Hignett,
" What does this letter mean ?" because it was an ambiguous
letter. I could not make anything of it. He said, " Sir, I
do not know ; I have no copy of that letter." I said, " Very
well, sir, you will take this,' (I gave him the original letter),
" and give me an explanation immediately." I mentioned
also, (this was at half-past four), that I hoped to dine at the
Carlton Club, where he was to send his letter. At seven o'clock
the following letter was delivered to me.

The witness read the same as follows :
" Office of Ordnance, June 26, 1845.

" Sir—l have perused a letter addressed to you by Mr. J.
P. Fearon, solicitor to the South-Eastern Railway Com-
pany, dated this day, adverting to a letter stated to have been
written by me to the late secretary of that Company in which
your name is mentioned; and in compliance with your de-
sire to be furnished with some explanation, I beg to state that
I recollect having had some communication with the gentleman
alluded to, but it was a confidential one, and he has just in-
formed me that he so considered it, and so indeed did Mr. Fearon
so understand it from him. I remember applying to the Se-
cretary for some of the new shares four or five months ago, I
having previously held some of the old shares in my own name,
for individuals of my family ; but I have no recollection of hav-
ing used your name in my letter to the secretary. Most assur-
edly I had no authority from you to apply for shares in your
name, or in your behalf, neither had I communicated with
you on the subject. If I did so it must have been inad-
vertently, and very improperly no doubt, in a letter which was
strictly private and confidential. I have, on the present oc-
casion, strictly conformed to the orders of the Master. General
and Board, and am exceedingly sorry for the annoyance which
this most unwarrantable breach of confidence on the part of
Mr. Fearon will occasion you.—l have, &c.,
(Signed) "J. HIGNETT.
" Captain Boldero, M.P., &c., &c."

I had previously made an arrangement with Mr. Bonham
to meet him after dinner. I met him after dinner : I should
think at half-past nine, and I said, " Steps must be imme-
diately taken to get a copy of this letter." We discussed
the question, and we mutually agreed that a letter should
be written to the Honourable William Lascelles, the Chair-
man of the Committee, requesting a copy ; but when writing
the letter (each was engaged writing his own letter), we
received an intimation that the Chairman of that Committee
( Group A) had refused to receive the letter ; therefore, I
naturally said, " It is useless to write, still something must be
done." We discussed the question, and we thought that
the only mode open to us was to write to Mr. Fearon. I
drew a draft of the letter I intended to send : Mr. Bonham, of
course, wrote his own. I came down to the House of Commons,
and it was intimated to me that a petition was going to be pre-
sented that night from the South-Eastern Company. I went
into the ;ibrary and I altered the terms in which I originally
addressed the letter to him. 1 meant to have asked for a copy
of the letter of the 3d of February, but when I found that a
petition was going to be presented to the House, I had no doubt
that a copy would be produced, and, therefore, I did not ask for
a copy. This is the letter which I wrote. The witness read the
same, as follows :

" Ordnance, June 26, 1845.

" Sir—l have received your letter dated this day, wherein
you state your intention to produce before the Committee now
sitting on Group A ( Railways) a letter addressed by Mr. Hig-
nett to the late Secretary of the South-Eastern Railway, in
which my name is mentioned. I thank you for the information ;
I am ignorant of the contents of Mr. Hignett's letter, except as
far as he has since communicated them to me, and 1 have to as-
sure you that he had no authority from me, direct or indirect,
to make such an application. But, whatever correspondence
has taken place between the contending parties, and sanctioned
by the Master-General and Board, I, as a Member of this
Board, am content to share the responsibility.—l remain, &c.
(Signed) " H. G. BOLDERO."

I think you came to me and stated that you wished to speak
to me, and you then said, " Here is the petition." That pe-
tition you offered to me, and you said that the petition you
would not have presented, unless you had the original letter.
You offered me the petition; I declined it, and asked for the
original letter. That was my first knowledge of that letter.
Will you now allow me to call your attention to a paragraph
in a letter of the 3d of February, whirl is to this effect:—" I
think you should not overlook Captain Boldero (a member of
this Board) in your allocation of the forthcoming shares ; you
can address them to him at this office, and mark it private."
"I he Committee understand, therefore, from the letter that you
have put in, that Mr. Hignett had no authority whatever to
use your name ?—Not a shadow of authority.
Are you a holder of shares in the North Kent Railway ?-1
am not now ; I was.
Did you buy them yourself in market ?—I did not buy
them myself in the market.

Will You state the particulars of that transaction to the Com-
mittee ?—Deeidedly.
_TI, a 11,^L,, ,h...- aI h.. ame
the beginning of itS
ben vn a o
shareholder s
he .;.1 —c,-- , . i
description ; my first transaction in speculating a little n rail-
ways commenced thus:— A friend of mine asked me if I would
buy some shares in the Chester and Holyhead. I said " Yes,
provided they are moderate in price.' It was finally agreed
between him and me that I should buy twenty shares of
him, and he would deliver :hem in the course of four
or five days, if I would give hip a cheque for 1401. I sent
for the newspaper, and I found de shares quoted in the market
at 6i. He said, " Well, if you will give me a cheque for
1401., that will include brokersge and everything ; and 1
bought the shares. On the ltlli of March I asked Mr.
Hignett to buy me ninety share; more in the Chester and
e
Holyhead. I knew no broker; I was never on the Stock
Exchange, and I therefore asked gm to buy them for me.
Mr. PAK INGTON—And you t those shares?—Yes; he
bought them for me at my Bede. On the 7th of March
Mr. Hignett was at my room, ant we spoke about the North
Kent Railway ; he said he though it was a good speculation:
the premium was very low, and I•equested him to buy me one
hundred shares. He bought one nudged shares, and of course
paid the premium and paid the bikerage, and I paid him for
them; I kept them for a short tirb and sold them.
When did you sell them?—
in 2fortnight, I think.
Mr. W. PATTER—Do you recoPet what the premium was?
—No ; it was not a very profitablPne.
CHAIRMAN—You gained by te sale of them ?—I think I
did ; yes, I may say that I did. 100 sold ?—The whole 100
lan 1 liked.
premium was ?—I will
Mr. ROEBUCK—Were the who'
morry at what the market price
were sold; it was a heavier stake
CHAIRMAN—Can you state wht' the
,That I will make good endeavour to ascertain by to-
was ; I forget what it was at this Preent•
What was the date of the sale ?;That
e ?—No, I do not.
to-
morrow.
tie note ?-1 do not knew
No, I believe
—traYnsealtions upon that
Had you a broker to sell those sires?
Do you remember the broker's e
ipers for the Committee.
Mr. lioEuucx—Have you got
whether I have, for I had closednq
aisiness was transacted by
point ; but I will look into all my
hind sold them for me. The
CHAIRMAN—Were ?e
I took up a paper,
not.
Mr. PAKINOTON—The whole
have
share;
three lines, ad
Mr. Hignett ?—lt was • he boug
next transaction was, 'I
think,
and I said, " Mr. Hignett, I
OWN like for dot; 0 bey qr tw# Illiarq in each jamc
,

stating things as they occurred : ) " twenty in the Man-
chester and Leeds, twenty in the North British,
and twenty in the Glasgow and Elinburgh," all six.
teenths. I think the Manchester and Leeds I hold now, and
these are the papers. (The witness produced the same.)
There was a premium paid in the market. And these are the
North B&ish. (The witness produced the same.) The
Glasgow and Edinburgh I have not got ; I sold them in
the market.

CHAIRINIAN—Did you at any time subsequently purchase
any shares in the North Kent ?—I did.
What was the date of that purchase, and the number of
shares ?—That was in April ; the next and only other trans-
action that I had in the Nnrth Kent, something occurred in
getting the Bill through the Committee; some objections
were got over, and a friend advised me to re-invest in the
North Kent.- On the 25th of April I asked Mr. Hignett to
buy me fifty or sixty shares. In the afternoon he came and said
that be had bought one hundred and twenty North Kent shares.
1 said, " That is more than I want," and I took seventy.
There was 21. premium paid. I asked him also to buy twenty-
five shares in the North Kent for a connexion of mine, wl.ich
he did, at 21. premium.
Sir C. DOUGLAS—Were those twenty-five over and above
the seventy ?—Certainly.
Mr. T. EGERTON—Did you pay a deposit with the pre-
mium ?—They were sold in the market at 21. premium on
the deposit ; the shares were, I think, at 1/. 15s. each, and 2/.
was the premium added to the deposit. I sold thirty of those
shares in April, and I kept the remainder until the 9th of
June. On the 9th of June I sent for Mr. Hignett, and de-
sired him to sell the whole sixty-fire.
Mr. PAKINGTON—Your remaining forty, and your friend's
twenty-five?—Exactly. There were thirty sold first, and on
the 9th of June I sold sixty-five. Here is the paper—
" Sixty-five North Kent shares, 9th of June." I sold them at
2 premium.
CHAIRMAN—You have ceased to be a shareholder in the
North Kent Company ?—I have.
You have not had any shares since ?—No.
Your purchases and sales were made in the name of Mr.
Hignett?—They were.
Under your direction ?—Certainly.
Your name not appearing in the transaction at all ?—I sup-
pose not. I told him to buy and sell, just as I felt a disposi-
tion to speculate. The reason why I sold on the 9th of June
I will explain. Finding that evidence was being received by
the Committee contrary to the spirit and wishes of the Master-
General, it struck me that possibly some question might arise
in which I should be called upon to offer some explanation, and
that induced me to sell.

Mr. DUNCOMBE—Where did you expect that explanation
would be called for ? In the House ; there might be some
petition or discussion about it. I saw that as the matter was
going on I had better be out of it. But previously to
this, the Master-General having given his consent to the
three competing lines, unqualified to one, and conditional
to the other, which conditions had been accepted, I did not
think it possible that any question could arise in the depart-
ment affecting the merits of either line. The Master-General
having left it to Parliament which of the lines was the best,
his assent being given to all three.
CHAIRMAN—You have stated that a friend advised you to
re-invest in the North Kent shares in April, you having sold
those shares that you previously had in March ; was that friend
any Member of the Board of Ordnance, or anybody connected
with the Board ?—Certainly not.
Was he in any way connected with the promoters of the
Bill ?—Not in the slightest degree. He was a man specu-
lating in them a little like myself; a connexion of mine.
Neither connected with the office nor the Railway Company ?
—No.

Have you ever had joint-share transactions with any per-
sons, with the exception of Mr. Hignett, connected with the
Board of Ordnance ?—I do not call those joint-share transac-
tions with him. He bought when I asked him, and sold when
I asked him.

Have you had any similar transactions to those with any
other person connected with the Ordnance f—No ; and ex-
cept that he bought and sold for me in those two cases, with
those two exceptions, I have never touched any shares in the
North Kent Company.
Mr. T. EGERTON—The reason that you employed Mr.
Hignett was, that youhad never had any dealing in shares?—
Exactly.

You-said that you bought those shares after the assent of the
Master-General had been given to one line, and the conditional
assent of the Master-General had been given to the other; will
you be kind enough to state when that assent had been given ?
—The answer to that ought to have been, that I bought the
shares after the assent of the Master-General had bean given to
all those three lines ; the assent to them was given, and they
were all before the House of Commons with the assent of the
Master- General.

Mr. W. PATTEN—Before you bought any shares ?—Yes.
Mr. T. EGE KTON—WiII you be good enough to give the date
of the assent of the Master-General ?—The assent of the Master-
General to the London and Croydon was given on February
the 7th, to the South-Eastern on the 29th of January, and to
the North Kent on the 20th 'of January ; a conditional
assent was given, and then went to Parliament.
Mr. Liddell—The sixty-five remaining shares that were in
your possession after the purchase, you directed to be sold on
the 9th of June ?—I did.

I understand you to say, that the reasons why you directed
that the sale should take place were, that certain proceedings
were going on before the Committee, in consequence of which
you thought that the propriety of your holding those shares
might be questioned?—Decidedly. I had previously enter.
tained the opinion that no possible question could come before
us. I thought that the present conditions of the Master-Ge-
neral, would, in this case, as in every case which we had had
before, be insisted upon by the Committee to which the Bill
went : I had never known any instance to the contrary.
Mr. TANC KED—Have you had frequent instances of Bills
in which the consent of the Master-General was necessary ?
—Yes, we have frequent instances of Bills that affect Ordnance
property, and the Master-General makes one rule in ruch
cases • he will never throw any unnecessary impediment in the
way Of a public improvement, whether it is by a railway Bill,
or a dock Bill, or any other; he decides all those questions;
they are military questions.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—The Board have not the slightest influence
in those cases ?—Not the slightest.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Chelmsford, July 16.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDIE, and a
Common Jury.)
BROWS( V. BREWER.

This was an action brought by Mary Brown to recover
damages from the defendant, William Brewer, for the breach
of his promise to marry her.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Ogle were for the plaintiff,
Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Bramwell for the defendant.

Segeant CHANNELL stated the ease, and said the parties in
this action were persons in a humble condition of life, and the
plaintiff sought compensation for a very grievous injury that
she had sustained at the hands of the defendant by his break-
ing a solemn promise he had made to marry her. The plaintiff
was the daughter of a beer-shop keeper, near Braintree, and the
defendant had formerly been a footman and groom, hut by the
death of a relation he would come into the possession of a con-
siderable sum of money. It might be as well for him to
state that the plaintiff was 44 years old. and he believed the
defendant was not more than 33, but he was perfectly well
aware of this disparity between their ages at the time he pro-
mised to marry her, and after going so far as to obtain a
license upon the Wednesday, and have all the dresses and the
wedding dinner provided, he without any cause whatever re-
fused to fulfil his promise, and the defendant, therefore, by
the advice of her friends, was compelled to adopt the present
proceedings.
The Rev. Mr. Scale, the minister and surrogate of the
parish of Braintree, deposed that he was acquainted with the
parties, and remembered the defendant coming to him for a
license to be married on the 4th of March, which was the day
he fixed for the wedding. On being informed whom he in-
tended to marry, witness told him Miss Brown was a very good
girl, and she would make him an excellent wife. Witness
waited until twelve o'clock on the 4th of March to perform the
ceremony, but the defendant did not make his appearance. He
came the next day, and paid for the license, and then said he
did not intend to get married. Witness told him he had acted
very wrongly, and it might have serious consequences.
Cross-examined—Did not say anything to him about ec-
clesiastical censure, or about a white sheet.—(Laughter.)
Mr. CHAMBERS—How long ago is it since the plaintiff
was a worthy, good " girl ?" Witness Well, I should
think it is a good while since she was what may properly be
termed "a girl." She is now about 44 years old.—(Laughter.)
Mr. CHAMBERS—Yes, rising 45, is she not ?—( Renewed
laughter.) Witness—She may be. The defendant did not
come for the license in his footman's dress, but he was very
smart. Did not hear that the boys were following and laughing
at him. He gave as a reason for his not going to be married
on the 4th of March, that he had to receive a legacy of 6001.
or 7001. on that day. _

Mrs. Mary Carter deposed that she had been acquainted
with the plaintiff and the defendant for a good many years.
The defendant used to live with a lady named Ratcliffe, who
was his aunt. He was a sort of " servant of all work" to
her.—( A laugh.) When this lady died, he became entitled
to some 'property. He used often to joke, and say that he
should get married, but he did not mention any one in par-
ticular, and witness told him that Miss Brown was a very nice
young person.
Sergeant CHANNELL—What did he say to that? Witness
—Why, he said he thought so too.—( Roars of laughter.) She
told him that she was older than he was, but he said that did
not matter.—(Renewed laughter.) After this they became
intimate, and the marriage was fixed to take place on the 4th
March. Witness was invited to the wedding feast at the plain-
tiff's mother's house, and she went there accordingly. A number
of guests were invited, and Miss Brown was dressed in her
wedding suit, and all the other preparations were made for the
wedding.—(A laugh.) A post-chaise was sent by the de-
fendant, and it was waiting at the leer to take them to church,
but the bridegroom did not make his appearance.
By Mr. CHAMBERS—Had known the defendant's family for
several years. His father was a labourer. The defendant was
brought up as a labourer, and when a boy used to be employed
to frighten away birds, or anything else that he was asked to
do. The joking about marriage was after h. 1... A ---
taa
oupputt as you were going along he
said something about getting married, and you said, " Molly
Brown is a nice girl."—( Laughter.) Witness—Yes, she
happened to be standing at the door as we were going by, and
I remarked to him that she was a nice girl, and he said,
" Yes, I think she is."—( Roars of laughter. )
Mr. CHAMBERS—Pray, Mrs. Carter, will you tell us when
you consider a woman ceases to be a girl ?—( A laugh.) Wit-
ness—Not until she is married.—( Roars of laughter. )
Mr. CnAmeeits—Then they are ali nice girls, I suppose,
until they are married ? Witness—Yes—( Renewed laughter. )
The witness then went on to say that there was a good party
invited on the wedding-day, and finding the bridegroom did not
come they resolved to dine without him. They did not have
any dancing or singing, and, in fact, it was rather a dull affair.
She did not hear anything said at the dinner abut lo,ing the
young man or the 7001. The plaintiff was there, but she could
not eat any dinner.—(Laughter. )
Mr. J. Harrington proved that he was invited to the in-
tended wedding, and he added that he was to have given the
bride away. The plaintiff was quite ready, but the gentleman
did not come.—(A laugh.) Witness dined, had tea, supped,
and stayed all night.
Cross-examined—As the defendant did not think proper to
come, they resolved to " keep it up" amongst themselves.
( Laughter.) They ate up the whole of the wedding cake—
( Roars of laughter.) They finished the wine and the brandy,
and enjoyed themselves.
Mr. CHAMBERS—Yes, and I believe you drank as toasts,
" Absent friends," and " Better luck another time."
Witness—Yes, we did.—( Laughter.)
John Brown, a brother of the plaintiff, proved that she had
purchased some wedding clothes and furniture, in anticipation
of the marriage. He also said that the defendant asked him to
be " Daddy," and give the bride away at the wedding.
James Digby, a post-boy at the White Hart, Bocking, proved
that the defendant engaged a post-chaise to take his intended
bride to church, slid that on the sth of March he came and
paid for it, and gave him 5.5. for himself.
This was the plaintiff 's case,
Mr. CI-TAM/MRS addressed the jury, and after making some
humourous remarks upon the nature of the evidence in support
of the case for the plaintiff, urged that the action was one of a
most trumpery description; and that it was perfectly clear, from
the conduct of the plaintiff, that she had no affection for the
defendant, and that the only object she and her friends had in
view was to get hold of the defendant's money. He contepied I ,
that 111 ioint 9f fact the plaiatiff he 4 illgtziklAc4s q real tnjur r,

and although she might be legally entitled to a verdict, yet that
the sroatlest amount of damages would be a sufficient remune-
ration for the injury she had sustained.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE having summed up, the jury found
for tile plaintiff—Damages 301.
CROWN COURT.—( Before Lord Chief Jaw.ice TINDAL.)
Junes Jenkins, 21, was indicted for stealing a handkerchief,
the property of George Howard.
It appeared that the prisoner was in confinement at Spring.
field Gaol upon a charge of uttering counterfeit coin, and while
under committal for trial at these assizes he toak the oppor-
tunity, while the prosecutor, who is the schoolmaster of the
gaol, was in one of the wards, to steal his handkerchief. A
fellow prisoner, who happened to see the act committed, gave
information to the turnkeys, who, upon searching the prisoner,
found the handkerchief in his possession.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and it was proved that
he had been before convicted of felony, independent of the
other charge of uttering counterfeit money.
Chief Justice TINDAL sentenced him to be transported for
ten years.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—Oxford, July 14.
CROWN COURT.—( Before Lord Chit f Justice I) itruAN.)
.1)1In Watts, aged 22, and William Neale, aged 19, were
indicted for feloniously assaulting Henry Tebby, at the parish
of Heath, in this county, with intent to do him grievous bodily
harm.

Mr. Rickards appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Walesby
for the prisoners.
The prosecutor, who is a gamekeeper in the service of "Mr.
Rousby, of Cottesford, was out on the night of the 12th of Ja-
nuary last, between six and seven r.m., when he heard a hare
scream. He was not watching the game, but merely on some
business of his master's ; he, however, turned and went towards
the spot whence the sound appeared to proceed, and saw three
men, one of whom was named Jesse Willis. The prosecutor
asked Willis what he was doing there, when the latter struck
him a violent blow and knocked him down ' • as he was getting
up he received from the other men several severe blows which
inflicted serious and lasting injuries upon him • in fact, caused
the loss of an eye, and also destroyed on one side of his head the
senses at once of sight, hearing, and smelling. He was not so
stunned as not to be able to recollect that he altogether re.
ceived seven blows, nor was he so deprived of sense by the
brutal treatment as to be incapacitated from swearing to the
best of his belief that the prisoners were two of the three men.
Willis was convicted of the assault, and sentenced to 15 years'
transportation at the last assizes. The effect, however, of the
blows was at last to render him insensible, as it appeared, the
weapons used were hedge-stakes three feet long and about six
inches round. On recovering himself he made his way to the
house of the Rev. Mr. Maguire, the Roman Catholic clergyman
at Heath, where he was most kindly treated. The brother of
Mr. Maguire received him; on reaching the door he fell down ;
he was taken in and every kind of restorative administered, fur
his state was weak and his wounds apparently dangerous. Mr.
Jones, a surgeon at the neighbouring village of Brackley, was
very soon in attendance, and from his account it would seem
that the left side of the head was broken, the left nasal and
cheek bones fractured, the left eye grievously wounded ; and
there was also concussion of the brain, the result of blows in-
flicted with a heavy blunt weapon. On the evening in ques-
tion, while at Mr. Maguire's the prosecutor named Willis as
one of the men, but a few days after named the others. Severe
as the injuries were, it would appear that he was not in any
confusion of mind when he first sought assistance at the chapel-
house. A lean named Adams, the brother-in-law of the con-
vict Jesse Willis, proved that he had been himself with the
prisoners on a subsequent occasion, and that both of them,
after acquitting Willis of any share in the transaction, re-
peatedly admitted that they themselves were the guilty parties.
Nothing could be more perfectly explicit than this confession,
or more convincing, if the witness could be relied on.
It was also proved that the prisoners were seen in conversa-
tion with the witness on the evening and at the spot where he
alleged the confession to have been made.
Mr. VVALEszv addressed the jury for the prisoners.
The Learned Judge summed up, and the jury soon found
both prisoners Guilty.
Lord DENMAN, after commenting on the enormity of the
offence, sentenced them to fifteen years' transportation, observ-
ing, however, that he would willingly have passed a lighter
sentence on Neale (who by confession appeared to be less
guilty), but that the statute was imperative, and he had no
option. His Lordship seemed to intimate that from some other
quarter a mitigation might be hoped for.
The only case of any interest in the civil side had not ter-
minated at the rising of the Court.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Northampton, July 16.
CROWN COURT.—( Before Lord Chief Baron PoLLocr.)

The only case of interest which occurred was the trial of two
men, named I tn. 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 confessions 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 tha 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 hearCiig the details of the charge, as given by the
prosecutrix herself,

The LORD CHIEF BARON said the offence was clearly a
rape, or_nothins.

Vr. WING 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 capital offence.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said he was aware of it, but 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 wayin which the
prisoner could in law be tried. It had been 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 lid so they did not know, nor
ought they to know, because it was a part of the oath taken 17
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 not 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 •f 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— , auuressing the
The L0nn„C".......q...11y nothing to consider. He had ex-
roamed 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, Alt/ 15.
CROWN SIDE.—( Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL. )
Thomas 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
resides 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
valuable treasure. Its chief contents, were, however, it 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
tram 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. He was in the habit
of sleeping on the hearth, and was probably asleep that even-
ing, but could not recollect. He 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
warm themselves, as it was very wet and cold, The witness
said he knew the voice of the man rho 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
houses, 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 wen,t round to the back door, and forced it open.
They carne in. They forced him down on the bed, and
wrapped him in the bed-clothes, and onp of the men called to
the other to get a bald and tic it ovcs face, They did to.