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

WINTER ASSIZES.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT, Liverpool, Dec. 29.
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. PoLLocK, in stating the case, said the -principal
question for the jury would be, whether there was 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 had 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
pest 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, fer the prisoner, contended there was no
evidence of malice, to constitute the offence murder.
His Lordship recapitulated the evidence, and the jury,
after retiring for ten minutes, found the prisoner guilty
of manslaughter. The prisoner was then sentenced to be
transported for lire.
The following priaoners were called up to receive their
sentences :—Roger Horrocks, James Howarth, and Mary
Ann Hulse, convicted of blurglary, were severally sen-
tenced to be transported for ten years.
Charles Booth, Charles Jones, Thomas Hale, James
Bailey, mid Henry Mann, who had all pleaded guilty to
the charge of burglary, were sentenced to twelve months'
imprisonment, and bard labour.
John Walker, convicted for highway robbery, to be
imprisoned for twelve months to hard labour.
William Slack, convicted of burglary, to be imprisoned
for twelve months to hard labour.
James Francis Bentley and George Allinson, 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 to 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•
prisoued for two sears, and kept to hard labour.

(Before Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN.)
John Cabrew, a sea-captain, was indicted under the
Merchant Seaman's Act, for unlawfully forcing and
leaving on shore in parts beyond the seas one John Hill,
one of his crew, before the completion of the voyage fur
which he was engaged.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Whigham conducted the case fir
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 Leatherbat4ow stated that he was chief mate of
the Mediterranean. At Ambreeze, on the coast of
Africa, theshipped 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 Kroo-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 to
land him, and the canoe returned the following morning
without Hill. The vessel was then off Chillongo. 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. lie
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
hi.n to return to work. Hill refused to work in Sep-
t whilst witness and the captain were at dinner.
le 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. Boden 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 birch
or heather rod. He had sixty strokes, and was asked
about every dozen strokes whether he would return to
work. He said, it was no use going to work for he
should get no. wages. We cruised about the coast fur
twelve months, and were frequently at Loango and
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 Hill was put on shore.
Henry Hutchins, a black man, the steward of the
vessel, deposed to Hill coming to the factory at Loango,
of which the witness was in charge, two days after he
,maasnc-of
-war
ar ofl
R.
abpyid. an
When Ame American
was put on shore in a state of exhaustion ; he remained
two or three days, and w
s
on board her Majesty
Mediteranean came to Loango the captain came on
shore and asked after Hill, 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. He remarked upon the coa-
tradictions in the evidence, which he eontended 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 LORDSHIP 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.
His 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.

WESTERN CIRCUIT, Winchester, Dec. 30.
Wm. Blake and Daniel Bacon were indicted for as-
saulting and robbing 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 Phillpott was indicted for cutting and wounding
Richard llaynes, a
policeman, at Gosport, with intent 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.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stalford, Dec. 29.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
THE 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 and Mr. Kinnersley conducted the pro-
secution ; Mr. Yardley and Mr. iluddlestone appeared
for the defence.

The murder which formed the subject of the present
investigation was committed on the morning of the 4th
at Apedale-hall, near Newcastle, under the following
of last August, upon the land of Mr. R. E. Heathcote,
circumstances :

The neighbourhood of Mr. Ileathcote'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 anticipation of
a visit from some characters of this description. Mr.
Ifeathcote'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 was skirted

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-
vancal towards the poachers, who were sworn to by
Vaughan as being the two prisoners at the bar. At this
moment Beech bad 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
Pen lington. 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, coming
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 Bosch 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 hoinan beings, however depraved, could
be so utterly lost to mill sense of decency, and every re-
gard for their own security, as to ' cs.o on poaching for
some hours after the perpetration of a barbarous murder.
The Learned Couns-I 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 the
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 lent also been arraigned on another in-
dictment, in which Spilsbury was charged with stabbing
and wounding Vaughan, pith intent to kill and murder
him, and Oakes was charged with aiding and assisting
him.

.....
In reply to questions from his Lordship, Mr. CORBETT
said that as the eviience to support that indictment
would be the same as in the last case, and as he con-
cluded that the jury were of opinion that Vaughan had
been mistaken, he should nut proceed with that indict-

meat.
His lonnsuir concurred with Mr. Corbett ; and, n(
eVi<len_•e being offered en this indictment, a verdict o:
Not Guilty was recor(lo,l.

SOU T H IVALF, S.— Carmarthen, Dec. 30.
REITECCArrEs.—John Jones, alias Shoni-scybor-
fawr' David Davies, alias Dui y Cantwr, Wm. Walters,
and Thomas 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 charg,d with feloniously demolishing a toll-house.
The ATTORNEY - GENERAL rose, and stated that for
the misdetwanor 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-GENERAL said, that from what he
had heard the prison,r was in part compelled to join in
the riot ; az:d he should be satisfied if he were to enter
into own recognisances to appear and receive the
judgme:it of the Court, ticnever called upon, and be of
good behaviour in the in,antime.
He was bound over in the sum of 501. to appear, and
was then discharged.
The ease of John Jones, David Davies, William
Webers, 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, wiaO 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 punishmvut 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 deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
CI7 Y POLICE COMMITTEE.
Mr. 13 usb? idge, the landlord of the Robin Hood public-
house, in Robin Hoed 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, &s.—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 infoimation, George Ham,
No. 265, 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 pers'ins in his house. The defendant knew
what he (witness) meant, he having laid an 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 jA3IES DUKE—T(I(g' name them. Witness—They
are called the " Piggott's Gang."
Sir JAMES DUKE—That's not an answer to my ques-
tion. IVitness—Their names I know to be William
Piggott, Hugh Christ, John Luton, Little Old Man, and
Cavener.

Sir JAMES PUKE—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 obtaine.d.a copy of any official
document to prove to the Magistrates that these persons
are convicted thieves? Witness.-4I have not, Sir.
Sir JAMES Duxr..—Have yon any witnesses to call to
prove that they are convicted thieves ? Witness—
No, I have not.
Mr. DUNcoMBE (the defendant's solicitor)—Then
where did you obtain your information from ? Witness
—A brother constable told me.

Mr. DUNCOMBE—I thought so ; and is he here ?
Witness—No, lie 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 wfll 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
ymwer 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 I'or the future, otherwise the license of his
house would he endangered.