Star.
London, England, 1827-04-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

TAUNTON, Arms to.
&reamer OP A HUSBAND TO POISON HIS WICK.
. Wiliian. Hockey, a labourer, residing at Hors ngton,
near Wine/mon, was capitally indicted for administer•
• lag arsenic to his wife, with intent to poison her.
Mr. W. D. BATLEY opened the case for the postai-
tion, and called the following witnesses t
Mary Hockey--I am the wife of the prisoner, and
have been married to him 17 years. In March, my
• husband was working for Mr. Shepherd, 'about two
milts and a half from our own home. He had been
working there for some time, and was in the habit of
going there on Mondays and returning on Saturdays.—
On Monday, the 12th of March, he went to his work
at the farm, and, instead of returning on the Saturday,
- as he said he should, he came back on the Tuesday
-evening, and said that be had returned because he had
dreamt that I was ill. He behaved very kindly to me
that evening, and indeed always did so. We drank tea
together, and he said there would not be too much tea
for my breakfast next morning. We went to bed about
rvine, and I rose the following morning, at five o'clock.
I have a son, who got up at half-past five,• and I sent
him out to work. My husband got up at half-past six,
after I had lighted the fire: At first he went to the win-
dow, and then asked me what water them was in the
tea-kettle? I told him it was the water for our breakfast,
'Before breakfast I carried some clothes up stairs, and
'staid there from ten minutes to a quarter of au hour....
,When I went down stairs, I found the tea things at-
ranged, but I do not think that there was more than one
tea-cup on the tray. The caddy was on the shelf, and
toe lea pot on the table. j Went to fetch another cup
and saucer, but he told me that be was going to Frith
to breakfast, and he thought that there was not more
than enough for myself. He did not usually set out the
breakfast, except when I was confined to my bed. I was
;not in the room when the water was put in the tea-pot,
I asked him to take some of it, but he again said that
he was going to Frith, and that he had some tobacco ii
his mouth. I did not drink any tea while he was in th.
house. He did not stay more than a quarter of an hone
after the tea was made. I did not take any sugar oe
milk in my tea, but I observed some little specks sailing
about on the surface. I drank the cup of tea, and took
a second cup afterwards. I found myself getting un-
well before I rose from the table, but not much so till
4 had drank a second cup. My daughter did not take
•any of the tea, but I spoke to her about it. I looked
•it the bottom of the cup. and saw something there.-
-1 did not know whatstuff it was. It was a lightish co-
lour. Soon after I got very sick indeed, and vomited
very badly. I sent my daughter for some salts. I
took them in water, and then swallowed some mint tea.
4 was very bad, but did not know why. I went to
William Chorley's about half an hour afterwards. He
lived a quarter of a mile off. I took the tea-cup Ihad
been using with me. After I had taken the salts, I still
vomited, and likewise at Chorley's house. I felt very
:tot in my inside, and in rely mouth. I remained at
"-Chorley's for three or four hours, and they sent for
Mr. Wadmin. Previous to this time there had been no
',disagreeing between my husband and me.
-Cross-examined by Mr. Baarrow— We had mice
•rend other vermin in our house. The prisoner bad said.

somethingabout having something to poison them, and I
I thirst that he got some for that purpose. He was to
put it over the shelf up in the ceiling. The ceiling was
over the cupboard where the cups and saucers were
kept. I de not remember when my husband brought
home any of the poison for the mice. I was hurried
that morning, and I think I asked hint to set the tea
things. I do not know whether my husband was out
while I was up stairs. I did not wash the second cop
mu, nor the first. There was but a small quantity of
tea for breakfast. I bad no apprehensions that my
husband had any evil intentions towards me.
Mary Ann Hockey, the daughter, was also called,
burher evidence was of no moment.
Jane Wadmin examined—Corroborated the evidence
of Mrs. Hockey. She gave the cup and its contents to
Mr. Eastment, having first :hewed et to Squire Bailward.
Mr. Eastment examined—l am a surgeon at Wirt-
canton ; I went to see Mrs. Hockey about eleven
o'clock on the day in question; she was vomiting very
violently, and complained of great heat in her stomach
and about the throat and mouth. I examined the mouth;
it was full of frothy saliva; I found her strength very
much depressed, and her extremities cold; I am net
aware of any thing at all likely to produce such effects
as those I witnessed, but mineral poison. Mrs. Wad-
min skewed me a tea-cep; there was a small quantity
of whitish powder 'adhering to the bottom and sides of
it. I made various experiments the next mooning to
ascertain if the contents of the cup were poison. The
impression on my mind was that it was arsenic.
Cross-examined—l never saw the same symptoms in
combination, except where they were caused by poison.
I did not apply the stomach-pump ; it did not appear
tome to be necessary; I had one with me; neither did
I examine the contents of the stomach as, vomited,
because I considered that the deleterious contents of the
stomach had been discharged before I saw her. She
had been vomiting for several hours before I came, and
continued to do so for the wbole day..
The JUDGE asked, if Mr. Bayley did not mean to call
Henry Bernard, Mr. Easement's apprentice?
Mr. BAYLKY answere.l, that the brief he had received
from the attorney did not at first contain his evidence,
and that this had occasioned his omission, but he in-
tended to call him.
The JUDGIE said that was the fault of those who in-
structed him. The attornies in this part of the country
manifested great. carelessness about depositions and
tither things. They did not seem to know what they
sere doing.
Henry Bernard was then called—l am an apprentice
to Mr. Eastment. On Tuesday, the 13th March, 1 was
at Mr. Russell't, the druggist, at Wincanton. Francis
Russell was these. I saw the prisoner come into the
shop. Francis Russell took a bottle front a shelf, and
weighed from it a small quantity of whitish powder.—
He asked the prisoner what it was designed for? He
said rats. I saw Russell take it to the desk, as if to
write on it.
Cross-examined—l was in Mr. Russell's shop about a
quarter of an hour. 1 went there on an errand. No person
except Russell and the prisoner were there. The height
of the prisoner made such an impression on me, that I
am sure be is the same. I did not hear what he asked
for, as I was then speaking to some other person.
Francis Russell—The medicine sold was arsenic. He
marked poison on it.
Mr. Bastment was then recalled by the Learned
Judge, and said, that be had submitted the contentsof
the cup to four different tests. Three of these tests fully

satisfied his mind that the white pb*der which be bad
found in the cup really was arsenic.
The prisoner, in his defence, said, that be was quits'
innocent of the crime laid to his charge, and that he
had always b:eis very good friend., with his wife.
Two witnesses oldie names of Fever and Reu spoke
to the respectability of the prisoner's character. They
had known him many years.
Mr. Justice PARK summed up the Case to the Jury,'
and explained the law of the subject
After consulting together for upwards of a quarter
of an hour, the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The Learned Jurioa told the prisoner" that he had
had a narrow escape for his life. Ha hoped that the
awful situation in which he had been placed would be
a warning to him.

APRIL It
SUMACH Or Plioalns oP umratson.
MAWILUIS s. PRIM
This was an action to recover damages for breach of
promise of marriage. Mr. MIRRRITHER opened the
pleadings.
Mr. Sergeant Wit.tia addressed the Jury. It was im.
possible to calcalate on the injury inflicted by the de-
fendant ; her prospects in life had been blighted by a
man who' had not thought proper to assign any Natoli
for not marrying her. It was, he (the Learned Sergeant)
thought, the first time that he had to conduct a case of
this description against a person who was undefended ►
but in his opinion, this circumstance was not by any
means creditable to defendant. Neither of the parties
moved in a very high circle of society, but that did not
prevent the plaintiff from seeking compensation. net
ought it so to do. Neither was it by any means a jus-
tification of the highly improper conduct which the
defendant had chosen to adopt. The circumstances of
the case were most cruel, and tile neglect and desertion
esperienced by the plaintiff admitted of no palliation.—
The parties became acquainted at the very early age
of 17, on the part of the female, when the defendant
promised to marry her whenever his father should
die. This engagement was oftentimes repeated, and
that in the presence of respectable witnesses. The
father bad since died, but n It only had the defend-
Ant neglected to perform his covenant, he had plainly
refused to do so. That which made the case more
cruel was, that the young woman bad been so un-
fortunate as te become the mother of two children
by the defendant, as the result of this unhappy con-
nexion. That by no means lessened the claim now
'advanced by her. He had gained his point by promis-
ing her marriage, and subsequent to the birth of the
children he had repeated his promise in the presence
of witnesses. Not only had the defendant injured the
object of his pretended regard by injuring her feelings,
but he had placed her in a situation in which her pro-
spects could only be those of shame and beggary,
whilst he suffered nothing. She had lost every thing,
he nothing. But he, Abe Learned Sergeant, trusted
that the Jury would afford her the only reparation
which it was possible she could now obtain, and teach
the defendant that conduct like this could not be coun-
tenanced by honoufable men, or go without its due
share of punishment.
Harriett Hawkins, the aunt of the plaintiff, was fint
called.—She knew the parties well ; lived with her and
her mother; had heard Piing promise her niece to marry
ber. This was six or seven years ago. He had pro-
mised that he would marry her after the 'el nth of his
father. The plaintiff had had a child by him twelve
months before that. Pring used to visit the plaintiff at
the house, and she (the witness) had refused to let him
come, because he had some property and her niece
none. Ha promised to m wry her on the death of his
father, and said if he did so before he should be cut off
with a shilling. He used to come to the house three
or four times a day, and had often said in her hearing
that be would never leave her till the day of her death.
In answer to the CoußT—Neither the witness nor
the mother of the plaintiff ever allowed Piing to sleep
in the house.
Mary Bayly was acquainted with both plaintiff and
defendant; she had known them for four years, and
had heard the defendant say, that he would marry the
plaintiff a month after the death of his father, so help
him GOD ! He said this in her hearing twelve months
ago, as well as before. Soon after the death of bis
father, she saw Pring, who said he was going to Taun-
ton. She reminded him that he was bound to matte
the plaintiff. He made her a vulgar answer, adding.
that what he had said one day he should be off from
tomorrow. Pring's father was a farmer, and he was
at present living with his mother.
John Allen was acquainted with the defendant ; his
father died in September last; since that time the de-
fendant came to him, and asked him to go down to the
plaintiff with him, as a witness; he did go with him,
and Pring said, "Jane, what money do you want r
upon which she said, D— your money, and you too;
I have got two children, and have had enough of you
in the seven years I have lived with you—all I want of
thee is, foe thee to make me thy wife." After some fur-
ther conversation, the plaintiff iaid, t‘ D— thee and
thy witness ton." Upon which the witness walked off,
for he thought he WA, not wanted.
Henry Hawkins knew the defendant, and spoke to
him of marrying the plaintiff. On one occasiun he asked
him why he allowed the children to run about without
shoes? upon which the defendant said, that he would
take care of the children, but that Jane must take care
of herself. At another meeting he said to witness,
"Jane wants to be married to me, but I cannot say any
thing about it." He also said, " I base enough money
—my father left me 7001. and I shall have another 1001.
when my mother diems "
Mr. Justice BuRRouGH summed up the case, and said
that the plaintiff was unquestionably entitled to re-
cover damages, as the defendant had broken his pro.
guise, thi ugh it might be that as he found the plaintiff
was a breeding woman he was not inclined to go any
further with her.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
.Fifty Pounds.
aTABIIING, UNDER LORD ELLENBORousaa ACT.
J. Bennett was capitally indicted for cutting and
maiming John Baker, near Ilminster, with the intent to
do hits some grievous bodily harm, or to murder him.
From the evidence it appeared, that Bennett was the
tenant of Baker, but that he was desirous of giving up
the premises. Baker consented to receive them back on
receiving the sum of 51. although he was lawfully en-
titled to 121. as one year's tent. Bennett refused to pay
more than 41. and said that if the prosecutor would not
take that, he should have none. A dispute arose on
this, and Bennett went away saying that he would re-
move his goods that night, without paying the rent at
all, since Baker would not receive the 44. In conse-
quence of this threat Baker went down to the house
that eiening, and found the prisoner actually engaged,

in restoring his furniture. 134ker terose(l to let the
!things goorpon which Bennett ran into the house, and
came back with • crook, such ai butchers Use, with
which he stabbed the prosecutor within half an it.6h of
the spine of the bsfeit. The wound, however, was not
very serious, as in the course of a day or two Baker
was able to attend to his business.
Several legal objections were taken by Mr. Moobt
to the indictment, upon the ground that the blow, had
it been fatal, would not at law bare been considered
as murder.
Mr. Elms having replied to these objections,
The Learned Juoal expressed his opinion that the!r
was no weight in them.
Mr. Justice Pans having summed op the evidence,
recommended the Jury, from the mallets character
the prisoner had received, not to infer an intention to kill.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of stabbing with
the intent to do a gi ievons bodily Injury.
Mr. Moour, in arrest of judgment, contended that
the indictment was bad, inasmuch as the instrument
with which that blow had been inflicted was not suffi
ciently described in the record.
Mr. Justice PARK held that a more minute description
was not necessary, and ordered judgment of Death to
be recorded against the poisoner, at the same tunic inti-
mating that he should recommend him to mercy.
Oa Monday last, Jobs Budge, James Budge, and
William Allinigham were capitally indicted for having,
on Monday night the 21st, or early on Tuesday morn.
ing the 22d day of August, violated the ptrson of Ann
Stamford, at March ; and Joseph Kitchen the younger,
and William Beek, were indicted for feloniously aiding
and assisting the said John Budge, James Budge, and
Vim. Ellingharn, in committing tbe.said violation.
Mr. Parma detailed the facts of the case, which were

afterwards red in evidence.
7
• Vise Kitchen having an indletetent against him for
tal offence before the alime.nientioned prisoners,
WM* trial was gone into respecting the rape by Kitchen,
Weft etollahise for the offence.—Bee the following report.]
Aran Stamford, the prosecutriz, stated that she was
the wife of lames Stamford, of Wood Walton, in the
county of Huntingdon; she was fifty-nine years of ago,
and had been the mother of eight c Urea, She lefts
home on the day named in the indic meat, to go to
\
March; she arrived there about nine o ten v'clock is
the evening ; went into the White Hart Inn to get
some refreshment ; on coming out she met Kitchen;
asked him the way to a Mrs. Sturman's; be led her the
wrong way, (What he did to her is disclosed on his
trial.) Came back into the town with him ; snide an
alarm; saw a-tall man (John Budge) with James Budge,'
Ellingham, and Beck ; they whispered together, Kitchen
having charged her with stealing his watch, she agreed
to go to the field to search for it; when she had got in-
side the gate, in a close called Goodman's Close,. John
Budge got hold of her and threw her down. (Here the
witness completely proved the commission of the capi-
tal offence, first by John Budge, then by James Budge,
and Wm. llingham.) Prosecutrix made all the resist-
ance in her power, and cried out murder. When they
had so treated her, she got up, put her hands together,
(witness
.here described the manner), and prayed of
Beck not to meddle with her; he laughed, and dam
threw her down. From the fall she became insenoille,
and did not know what occurred for some time. When'
she came to herself they were standing *round her—they
then ran away. Prasecutrii got up,
•but found she'
could not walk; she then sat down A little while, got u
again, and v alked to Mrs. Sturman's. Proseentrur
called them up, and told what had happened; she then
went to bed. The next day she went before the Ma-
gistrates. On cross-examination nothing was elicited to
shake her former testimony.
Mrs. &Airman, of Match, remembers prosecutrix
coming to her house, and calling her up, about half-past
three in the morning; she said, for Gon's sake get up, I
have been ravished. Her gown was all tore, her hair
all down, and she was crying bitterly. Witness examined
her before she'went to bed ; found a bruise on her thigh,
a act etch on her shoulder, a cut °usher loins, and a
bump on her head. ,
On cross-examination, witness said she had never said
so pi osecutriz, if you don't hang these men I will never
speak to you again.
Matthew Hunns and other witnesses corroborated
various parts of the prosecutrix's testimony.
Mr. Belden, assistant to Mr. Culledge, surgeon, of
March, examined—Found the bruises as stated by the
witness Sturman; he described further violence domino
her person; and that I.e also found the right wrist
bruised, as if made by the nails in a man's shoe. ' '
For the defence, two or three persons were called 10
the character of Ellingham.
The Learned Jonas summed op with great clearness,
explaining the law as applicable to the case.
The Jury, after retiring for some time, returned, find-
ing all the prisoners Guilty of the capital crime charged
in the indictment.
Joseph Kitchen, the pr;soner tried with Budge and
others, was arraigned on Tuesday, on the capital charge
of violating the person of Ann Stamford.
Mr. FLANSAGAN Obiltetel to the trying the prisoner
on this second indictment, observing 'that the law of
England did not authorise the trying a man twice for.
the same offence. He contended, that at the trial of
yesterday, the indictment charged .the rape on one
count, and in the second count charged the aiding mid]
abetting, on which second count the prisoner was fosse
guilty. The Learned Counsel, therefore, contendid
that the offence of rape being laid in both indictments,
and the prisoner having been acquitted of the rape on
the first, he was not to be called upon to plead to the
second.
. Mr. PRIM;, in reply, argued that the offence men•
tioned in the first indictment being for a rape and aid.
ing others, and the second indictment being for an es.,
thely new charge, that of rape only, when be was alone,
with the prosecutrix, lie was rightly charged. A Jury
was empannelled to try this issue, and a verdict that
they were separate and distinct offences recorded. The I
trial then proceeded.
Ann Stamford was then called. She stated, in nearly
the same terms as on the former trial, up to the meet.
ing with Kitchen in the street, and her asking him to
shew her the way to Sturman's, insteading of doing
which he took her to Goodman's Close. She state{
that he threw her down; she struggled, and called out
H Murder." When he had effected his purpose, she
'gut up. He then charged her with stealing his watch,
and rifled her pockets. He then threw her down again.
and repeated the offence. Prosecutrix got up and sea
'away ; she came to Cunningham's door, and called oat
I murder, and said he had violated her; prisoner told him
she had f;_t2.4l his watch ; he also caught hold of her, and'
said, " you, I'll do for you before you leave
March." The same evidence was then gene through,
las to the meeting the Budges, her going to Sturman's,
the surgeon; Ore. as on the former trial. An additional