The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-25 00:00:00

AUGUST 25, 1835.

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES

CROWN COURT.—Fethav
MURDER.
James Beirotv, aged 40, a stout, thick-set man; whose outward
appearance was that of a respectable mechanic, was indicted
for the wilful murder of Priscilla Barlow, his wife, at Bury, on
the 31st March last. The prisoner having been unwell in the
prison, and apparently so while standing in the dock, was ac-
commodated with a chair. He had a handkerchief bound
tightly round his head. Nothing in his countenance indicated
insanity er,a.fetocious diSposition.
Mr. HULTON and Mr. BRANDT appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr;Pser. attracted on behalf of the prisoner. Mr. BRANDT
briefly stated the case.
The first witness called was Nancy Ashworth, who deposed
that the deceased, Priscilla Barlow,, had called upon her about'
six months previous to the commission of the murder, and had
taken lodgings from her. .She afterwards learned that the de-
ceased had parted from her husband. •Remembered that on the
31st March, the prisoner had called upon his 'wife, when he
asked her if he should take.a house; she replied " No!" He
then placed upon her lap a paper, which contained a written
statement of his earnings. This the deceased threw into the
fire. Prisoner immediately seized her, and grasping her neck
and legs, he dashed her to the ground. ;Witness ran out and
called out murder ! When she returned, prisoner had hold of
his wife by the hair of her head, which he grasped with one
hand, whilee with a knife, like a butcher's killing knife, he in-
flicted a stab upon the left side of her neck. Deceased was
bleeding very profusely. Witness exclaimed, "She is dying,"
to which prisoner replied, ." If she be not so, she shall he. '
Sarah Harwood deposed that her residence was close to that
of the last witness, N mcy Ashworth. On the 31st March she
heard screams issuing from the house, upon which she went id,
to see what was the matter. When she got in she saw the de-.
ceased lying on the floor nearly covered with blood., 'Prisoner
stabbed deceased again in the neck in the presence of witness.
She (witness) exclaimed, "Barlow! Barlow! you are killing.
her." He replied that became with that intent. He then tank
the krife and began to cut at the left side of her neck. (rhe
witnesetere described the manner of this cutting, which gave-
the impression of a person trying violently to cut off the head
of another.). There were two other persons in the house, one
of whom observed she was dying. Prisoner said if she were
not dying, she should be presently. He then 'threw the knife
throtigh the window, after which he sat down on a chair; when
presently a man named Cook came in, and said to prisoner,
" What have you been doing?" He made nn reply, and Cook
ran ont and said he would fetch a doctor. -The prisoner then
got uptlid made his escape, by running into tbe.garden, and.
From thence over a meadow:
Cross-examined by Mr. Peue.-7-I 'saw him throw away the
knife,
Mrs. Rebecca. Leech 'stated that she lived four debts from
Nancy, Ashwerth. On the 31st March last' ebe-hesid-Isrienry
Ashworth scream "Murder!" upon which she ran into' the
house.. When she got in, the prisoner had his wife, Priscilla
Barlow-' down on the floor, and was sticking a knife into the
left side of her .neck. Witness went in and took hold of him,
when his hat fell off, and he offered to strike her with the knife.
She (witness) ran away, screamink.:" Murder !"
Thomas Barlow deposed that he worked near the house of
Nancy Ashworth. On the 31st March lest he heard an alarm,
and saw the prisoner running across the garden. He got over
into a meadow, which he crossed at a moderate pace, still run-
ning, From thence he got into a lane, when witness ran ih
pursuit of him. Prisoner then turned back and advanced to
meet him, and requested him to lead him to some place where
he might wash his hands. He said he wished togn quietly and
deliver himseff up to andpt Witness perceived that pri-
` sonee's hand was cut, asked him what he had been doing?
Prisoner replied that be had done that which he wanted to do—
which beiutended to do. He delivered the prisoner to a con-
stable.
Cross-examined by Mr. PEEL—Never knew the prisoner,
nor to his knowledge ever saw him before that time. -Prisoner
was then as quiet as a man could be. -
John Ashworth dephsed that his residence was at Bury; be
was the husband of the first witness. On the 31st March last,
recollected having seen the prisoner at four o'clock in the after-
noon at the houee of a neighbour. Prisoner sat down beside
him, and took fourpence from Hi pocket, and requested that
some ale should he sent for, Prisoner then asked witness ii his
wife had altered her mind yet. Witness replied that he had
not heard any thing about it. Prisoner then said that if his
children were determined to have no' father they should have
no mother. Prisoner then requested witness to accompany
him to the house of the latter tasee if he could prevail upon
her to live with him. Witness assented, but parted with him'at
that time.
Cross-examined by Mr. PireL.—Did not know that prisoner '
had been at Mr. Goodlad's lunatic asylum. Had heard de- ,
ceased say that prisoner had been in confinement some seven
years before at Mr. Goodlad's asylum. Was not aware that
deceased had ever made application for his readmission.
William Cook deposed that he had searched the garden of
Ashworth's house fur the knife, which he had at length found
covered with blood. (The knife was here prOduced.) 'That was
the knife. •
'Wm. Howard, a police-otEeer, stated that on the 31st March
be had been sent for; and took the prisoner into custody. He
had sat up with hitnthe whole night, during Which the prisoner
talked to him—first, respecting his jealousy of his wife, and
next, respecting his own crime. Witness then proceeded as
follows: " He told me that he had bought the knife at the shah
of Joseph Kaye, three weeks before, lot-the purpose, and with
the intent, of taking the life of his wife. He said that on the
day in question he . had left the Hollins, *here he resided, and
, gone to the Swan public-house, where he had taken three glasses
of gin and water. He then proceeded to the Waterloo, a tavern
near Bury, where lie had a gill of ale. He then went to Bury,
to where his wife lived. He had left the Hollins at between
one and two o'clock, and had called at the shop of a barber to
get shaved. When he arrived at the dwelling of Ashworth, he
said to his wife, I shall take a house, and then, Priscilla, must
thee and me live together.' She replied, 'No, never, while we
do live.' He said, if we do, every thing shall he forgotten and
forgiven. She replied, that •she never would live with him,
neither should her children. He went away to another house
and smoked his pipe, after which he again returned to his wife,
and laid a written paper upon her lap. This paper she took arid
s threw into the fire. It did not burn immediately, and he
snatched it from th 3 fire and placed it in his 'pia& titrit net:4
asked him if he then killed his wife? Ile replied, yes; 'but he
said he was so enraged be did not know what he was doing.
When he found she was dead, be ran and threw the knife into
the garden. At this time he went out with the intention of
drowning himself in the river. 'Witness said to hint, 'You had
a knife, why could you not cut your throat?' Prisoner replied,
cliecause he would rather have drowned himself' Witness
asked him what the paper was about which he had given to his
wife? Ile -replied that it was a statement of his earnings from
January, 1834, to the time of theirseparation.
Crrise-examiried by Mr. PEEL—IIe spoke of jealons 7 towards
his Wife. but witness was of Opinion\thet there was no ground
for it. Prisoner said his 'Wife hadltissecht man in public corns
pany, and witness did not think that a sufficient ground for
jealousy.
• Jahn Whittaker said he had known the prisoner 16 years.
When he took drink he was irregular. Know that he had been
confined in a lunatic asylum.
James Andrews examinad by Mr. nutl.ol4.—i am the deputy
constable of Bury. Ou. the Tuesday I was sent for to the pri-
soner about six o'clock, and found him at the workhouse. I
said to hirn--" Well, Barlow, this is a bad job," and he said,
"It is. It would never have happened if I might have lived
with my children. • I should have been content to live on bread
and water all my life with my children, if I might have lived
with them." I asked him if he had had any liquor, and lie said
iwogille of ale at Itichard-Chadwick's, of Hollins, and one glass
of gin and water and a glass of ale at the Waterloo. The pri-
soner did not appear to be different in his appearance from his
usual habits.
William Fletcher, surgeon, said that he had examined the
body of the deceased, and in his opinion her death had been
occasioned by a wound in the left side of her neck, which had
severed the carotid artery.
Mr. Fishwick, assistant in the shop of Mr. Kaye, an iron-
, monger, of Bury, remembered that the prisoner at the bar had
gone to his master's shop about a fortnight before the occur-
rence, and had purchased a knife. It was a whittle. It was
note butcher's knife, but a little larger. The knife was then
produced, and identified by the witness.
R. Orrell examined by Mr HILTON.—Is constable of Hollins.
The prisoner was given into my custody after the murder. I
said to him,." James, what have you done this for:P. and be
said that he had done nothing more than he intended to do. I
took him to Lancaster.
By Mr. BRAN wr.—The paper produced I took from the pri-
toner. It appears to be an account of his earnings. (The
paper .was here read by the clerk, from which it appeared that
the prisoner's wages averaged from £2 to 1;3 a month.)
Richard Orrell examined by Mr. Peat..—l am constable and
overseer of Enfield. A Mr. Barton was governor of the work-
hpuse during the prisoner's confinement there. I conveyed the
prisoner to the workhouse in 18/S myself. I did not then ap-
prehend any danger from the prisoner. I was one of the per-
sons who conveyed him to Lancaster Castle on this charge.
When we got near the castle gates, the prisoner looked up and
Said, shaking his head, "If I had been here before this job, it
would never have happened."
Josiah Barlow, the father of the prisoner, deposed that, when
his son was eleven years of age, he bad fallen from a'high place
and injured his head. In consequence of this he had been un-
der the care Of Mr. Berry, a surgeon, for several weeks. It was
the opinion of the latter, expressed at that time, that the pri-
' Airier would never he of sound mind. Six or seven years since
he had been confined in the asylum, and subSequently he had
been confined at the workhouse for several days. Hie wife bad
applied for his readmission about a year ago. Hiseon was very
poor, and pot able to pay the expenses of witnesses to such a
distance.
Mr. Goodlad examined by Mr. PEEL-4 am a surgeon re-
siding at Bury. My brother kept a lunatic asylum at Bury for
about ten years. My brother has been prevented from attend,
ing these assizes in consequence of severe illness. I have seen
most of the cases of insanity in my brother's asylum. ,In the
yhiar 1828 was called to examine the prisoner as to his sanity by
Lis Wife and her father. My opinion was that .the prisoner was
insane, and I signed a- certificate for his 'coupnement. The
prisoner was in a *stateof excitement, and I apprehended that
be Might commit violence if left at large. I cannot recollect
how long the prisoner was in confinement, but think four or five
weeks, In 1833 I was again consulted by the father of the de-
CeaSed as to his sanity, and found him again in a stab of excite-
ment. He complained of a lightness in
.his head, and having
passed most of the night without sleeping; he
-also complained
of noises in his ears and whisperings. These esympttnns were
such as people who have a disease in the brain labour under.
The symptoms arose from increased circulation of the blood.
I told his wife to remove all razors, scissors, or other artic,es
with which he might injure himself. I promised his wife that he
should be sent to the asylum if he did not soon recover. I sub-
sequently ordered him to be put into confinement, as I was al's
piehensive_that he might destroy himself or some other person.
In October last the prisoner called upon me and wanted a cer-
tificate of sanity. He said that he wanted it to take before a
magistrate in consequence of some disputes between his wife
and son. I did not give it him, and the prisoner went away.
He called again afterwards and said that he had got certificates
from some other surgeons, and wanted one from me. His wife
had procured a certificate of his insanity. Ile asked me if I
was one who had signed it, and on my replying that I did not
knew, he raised his band to strike me. I said to him, " James,
I have been too long brought up in a wood to he frightened by
an owl." To this the prisoner made no reply but stood motion-
less. His countenance expressed insanity at the time. di-
rected his wife to apply to some other surgeon for a certificate of
the prisoner's insanity, as I did not wish to sign a certificate
the to
confine any one in my brother asylum. The prisoner spokeof
disputes between himself and his wife, for about an hour and an
half. The witness bete entered into a statement of the manners
of the prisoner, describing the grievances between him and his
wife, from which it was evident that he was then. decidedly
labouring under insanity. He appeared exceedingly jealous,
and said that be one night found his wife in a different situation
to that she usually occupied, hem which he concluded that she
bad been out whilst he slept. Between the conversations I
had with the prisoner at different times, I went to his wife, and
she said that the prisoner would take her life as sure as she
stood there. The conversation with the wife took place in 1834.
I have heard from the prisoner's father that he had received an

ez"~A~~'-~'l

4
ra7411-cti‘;l.l"',2

injury on the head. This injury might cause an aberration of
intellect. An unfounded jealousy would be a symptom of in
sanity. The prisoner's excitement might arise either froni
jealousy or the fnjury. Having heard the evidence in this
court, it is my ()Pinion that wiled the prisoner c niniLed the
act that he did not know what he si*,;lB doing.
By Mr. Bitasirr.-11. was in 18'28 when I first attended the
prisoner, and while I did so he appeared in a stateof continuons
excitement. There was no calmness nor quietness aliout hint
at the time. When 1 saw the prisoner in 153.3 he was not so •
much excited as in 1828. In 183.3, I said that if he did nut get
any better I would sign his certificate for. his re-confinement.
He did get better. A man having been once insane may.re- •
cover and again be able to conduct his business, but the same
cause of excitement may cause him again to relapse. The pri-
soner's manners were such when he called on me that he ap-
peared to know that I was treating him -evasively when I said
that I did not know whether I had signed the Certificate or nut. '
I was treating him evasively, as it is not always necessary to
tell insane persons the truth. lied I seen the triedical•man who
attended the prisoner at the time of his accident, thirty years
ago, 1 should have been able to have formed a better opinion as
to whether the injury was the cause of insanity. I think that
if the prisoner had been in, a sane state he would never have
mentioned the act he was going to commit.
-John Whittaker re-called.—By a Juryinan.—Tbe prisoner's
habits were temperate and sober. He was attentive to his work,
and not a man .of violent passions. After his confinement he
was very steady, quiet, and upright. Prior to the prisoner's
confinement he was of rather intemperate habits, and it was
said to be through drink that be became insane.
William Ileeley examined by Mr. Praet..—l have known the
prisoner and his late wife for some years. They appeered to
live in the early part of his marriage en easy terms. The pri-
soner latterly became more talkative than usual, and often
came into my house and spoke of his wife. He appeared to be
jealous of George Cropland. 1 thought the jealousy unfeunded. ,
Cropland lived at Rochdale, six miles from the prisoner. At
difiereut times the prisoner has stated to me, that when he
has been iu bed with his wife,• she had gone out often,
staid some time away, and came back starved with cold. *He
did not say that he ever followed her. I knew Cropland was
living at Rochdale at the time the prisoner was jealous of him.
I recollect the time the prisoner's wife left hint, and before that
he several times brought his razors to my house; and desired my
wile to lock them up, as he said to her he did not know what
might happen before morning. He has frequently called at
five o'clock in the morning, at my. house, for, his razors. A
fortnight before deceased's death, he gaie me to Understand that
he intended to take away his wife's life, and I warned her to be
careful. He never said why he brought the razors.
Alice -Barton examined by Mr. PEEL—Am the wife of
Thomas Barlow. In the year of 1828 my husband was gover-
nor of Enfield workhouse. Prisoner.was ennfiried in the work-
houseson account of his insanity. HQ used to whistle, make a
noisKland march about the row during his confinement. My
"'husband was compelled to put a chain ronucl his bed at night.
He was subsequently put into a strait waistcoat.
By Mr. BRAN DT.—After five weeks' Confinement the pri-
soner went back to his own house. '
Mr. Thomas Amos, the governor of Kirkilale, examined by
• Mr. PEEL—The.prisoner has hed a fit in the prison since his
confinement on this charge. It Was the day before yesterday.'
rA surgeon attended him.
The above being the whole of the evidence adduced, the
learned JunG a summed up with touch perspicuity and elearness,l_
pointing out that it was their province to draw safely and se-
curely a conclusion from what they bad heard adduced. If they
were of opinion that the prisoner committed the act in the delu-
sion of the. moment. being incapable of distinguishing right from
wrong, then he was entitled to an acquittal. If they supposed,
although the evidence went. to show that he had been labouring
under an aberration of intellect, that sufficient reason remained
in him to know what, he was doing, they would find him guilty.
Theludge then handed up the paper containing the items of
the prisoner's examination, in his own handwriting, to the jury.
At about six o'clock the jury returned, and informed his
lordship that they had considered upon their verdict, and that
one of their body requested a portion of the evidence should he
read over to them. This having been done, the jury again
retired. They returned iu about half an hour, and deiivered a
verdict of guilty.
The.learned Judge then passed the awful sentence of the law
upon the prisoner.

CHARGE OF MURDER.

Jane Boardman, aged 46, was indicted for the wilful murder of
her grandchild, James Boardman, at Bolton-le-Moors, on the
29th April last. It appeared from the evidence that the daug,hter
of the prisoner died on the 29th of April, giving birth to a male
child. The child was nursed by the prisoner, who, having par-
taken very freely of liquor, took it to bed with her, she being in
a state of intoxication. In this state she Was found by the
neighbours, the child lying dead by her side. The hands of the
prisoner were bloody, and several marks and bniises, with a
livid appearance about the neck, gave rise to suspicions that she
had destroyed it. She was in consequence apprehended; and
the magistrate, considering that there was a just cause of sus-
picion, committed the prisoner for trial. The first witness
called was a Mr. Wolstenholme, a surgeon, who stated that he
could not possibly say whether the marks on the child's body
were the infliction of violence, or had been the consequence of
its birth. The learned Judge, finding every other point of the
case, as well as this, to be very meagre, directed the prisoner to
be Acquitted.
Richard Lord was tried on a capital charge for having com-
mitted an aggravated assault on. Susan, the wife of Edward
Lord. The prisoner was also indicted for having robbed Susan
Lord. Owing to some discrepancy in the evidence of the pro-
secutrix the .ludge acquitted the prisoner on the capital charge,
but found him guilty of the robbery. Sentence of death was
recorded against the prisoner, and the Judge intimated to hint
that he would be transported fur life.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
Before Lord ABINGER.
Mr. WiatrrataN begged to ask whether as the first special
jury case ( Furnival v. Hatfield, in which Sir r. Pollock and Mr.
Sergeant \Vilde were specially retained) had gone off, and as
that in which the Attorney-General (Sir J. Campbell) was en-
gaged, had been fixed for Tuesday, the rest of the special jury
cases would be taken in order.
His lordship answered in the affirmative.
A SEAMAN'S WAGBS.
JOHNSON V. HAMILTON AND OTHERS.
• The parties in this east-were Mr. ThomasJohnsam, who keeks
a lodging-house for sailors, in Bispham-street, claiming as the
administrator to the effects of William Stamford, a seaman, de-
ceased, and Messrs. Hamilton, Jackson, and Co., of Sperling-
street, merchants, engaged in the African trade, and the action
was brought to recover the sum of £27 10s. 6d. arrears of wages
due to the deceased. It appeared that ou the 7th of June, 1833,
a vessel called the Princess Elizabeth, belonging to the defend-
ants, had sailed from this port on a trading vos age to the coast
of Africa, and that Stamford had shipped on board of her as
carpenter, at £4 10s. per month. On the 20th of January fol-
lowing, whilst. the vessel was still on her voyage, Stamford died;
and on intelligence of his death reaching this country, the plain-
tiff, to whom he was indebted for lodgings, &c., applied as prin-
cipal creditor for letters of administration to his effects. He
obtained letters of administration, dated the 17th of J nue. 1831,
and applied to the defendants fin the balance of the wages due
to the deceased. They only objected at. first to the amount
claimed, alleging that no more than £2O 7s. 641. was due, and
that sum they offered to pay. The plaintiff's attorney at first
refused to take that sum, but a day. or two afterwards he agreed
to do so rather than put the parties to any further expense by
legal proceedings. .Subsequently, however, the defendants ex-
pressed Some doubts es to the identity of the person whom tbe
plaintiff claimed to represent, the name entered on the ship's
at titles being signed Stanford, .not Stamford, and refused pay-
ment.
For the plaintiff, the note, for the month's advance of wages,
cashed shortly after the departure of the vessel on her voyage,
was Produced. It was endorsed by the deceased himself, who
here spelled his name in the same manner as it. was spelled in
the letters of administration. For the defence, it was shown
that a sister of the deceased had taken out letters of administra-
tion, dated the 11th of August, 1834, under the name of Stan-
ford—that the plaintiff himself, in a letter which -be had written
to her announcing the death of her brother, had spelled the
name Stanford, and that the defendants had paid to her, in vir-
tue thereof, the sum of £23 19s. 7d., as the balance of wages
due to the deceased. The whole question turned on the proper
spelling of the name, into which the learned judge declined en-
tering, and refused to receive the evidence tendered for the de-
fendants on this point.
'Verdict for the plaintiff, damages .£2O Gs. 7d., with leave to
the defendants to cuter a nonsuit should the court above be of
opinion that the evidence ought to have been received.
STEAM-ENGINE REPAIRS. •
HALL AND ANOTHER V. MI-CROFT AND OTHERS.
The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. James and Richard
Hall, silk throwsters, at Corigleton ; the defendants, Messrs.
Holcroft, Chaloner, and Co., engineers, at the same plaCe : and
the action was brought to recover compensation, in damages,
fot the injury sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of al-
leged unskilfulness and negligence on the part of the defend-
ants, in making certain repairs and alterations in a steam-en-
gine belonging to the plaintiffs. It was alleged that, instead of
repairing it, they .bad very much injured it, and made it little
better than useless. . After the case had been opened- for the
plaintiffs, it was agreed to refer the question to arbitration, as
also another action, brought by the defendants against the
plaintiffs for repairing the engine.
BILL OF EXCHANGE.
LUNT V. THEELFA IL AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover the sum of £232 75., being the
amount of a bill of exchange drawn by the plaintiff, and accepted
by the defendant in payment for of.soap. furnished
by the former to the defendant, and fas partners Mr. Keats, late
carrying on business as grocers, in 'this town, . The pleadings
were vet v voluminous; but that on which the defendants re-
lied, and on which the. issue eventually turned. was, that the
defendant was not liable, inasmuch. as the plaintiff, in common
with other creditors of the. firm, had. in the months of Septems
her last, some few days before the bill had become 'due, agreed
to take a composition of 10s. in the peund in full ',fall demands ;
and- had actually received, in pursuance of that agreement,
£11635. fid.—part in another hill of £59 45., and the rest in -
rash. The proof under this issue,hing with the defendant, Mr.
Alexander, with whom wes Mrs Crompton, cpened the ease,
and 'called Mr. Andrew Buchan, late clerk to Messrs. Threlfall
and Keale, who stated that, in September last, he called uncut
the plaintiff, told him that other creditors had agreed to take
10s. in the pound,
and 6h" ed
hilmaitthaPftreercuc-aill'tslsorsaseidvehrael.wTuhlde
epalaqiunitii,eff v
iota iet.ry, asvenegryraaltilfiorestr.oews
subsequentlytook place;
and ultimately, according to the' witness. Mr. Lunt ,agreed to
take 10s„ agieeing to advance the other half of the returned
bill, in order to take it up. On the 22ud, the witness saw Mr.
Lunt and the Helier of the bill, and gave to him another bill,
which he had sgreed to receive, for £59 4s. Mr. Lunt handed
it over to the holder of the other bill, and his clerk, by his di-
rection, paid the other hall in cash. Witness; then handed cash
to Mr. Lunt, toivinealasee,itgiiphatrhgee, l'foOriet,hvehwiLlleArlira.iili,s,uanttidredeireeievteedd,
ihuisterleefrukset(oi teonuter it to Threlfnll and Kettle's account. The evi-
dence for the defendant haying closed,
Lord ABINGER held that the evidence Was not sefficient to
make out the plea that the plaintiff had,- along with the other
creditors, agreed to take the composition, it appearing that he
had only done so after making enquiries, and finding that some
of them had so compounded. He accordingly directed a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages £ll7 7s. Bd.
ASSA ULT---.6I2MLIELL v, WATSON.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages for
an assault. The plaintiff, Mr. John Dumbell, is a builder in
this town, and occupied a house as tenant of the defendant, M r.
Watson, a woollen draper. The dispnte arose between the par-
ties respecting the painting and papering of the hOuse occupied
lasy the,plaintiff. On the 20th of May lust the parties were in
King-street together, when the assault complained of vas com-
mitted. The only witness called, Hubert Murdock, stated that
he saw the defetidant following the plaintiff along the street.
-Dumbell turned and said. "You ale nothiug but a blackguard
for following me," on which the defendant turned round and
stands him a blew on the face. The witness described the blow
g
as neither very hard nor very soft,butjust a usiddlirone, which
raised a little redness on the cheek.
Mr. WIG lITMAN spoke in mitigation of damages. He re-
gretted that the time of the court had been occupied by such a
cause, and said there was no pretence for describins this truma
pery assault as oue which, in the words of the ples,, • had brute; Lai