The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-30 00:00:00

`~,~ `•~

TRIAL 0? DEAN, IOR THE ASSAULT ON HER \
• MAJESTY.

At the Criininal Court, on Thursday, before Lord Abinger,
Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Baron Rolfe, John William
Bean, 17, was indicted for a misdemeanor in assaulting the
Queen. Before the commencement of the trial, all the wit-
nesses were ordered out of court.
The Attorney-General briefly addressed the Jury, and
stated the nature of the offence with which the defendant
was charged. On the 3d of July, as her Majesty was pro-
ceeding frotn the Palace to the Chapel Royal, the prisoner
was observed to draw a pistol and to aim it at the carriage,
and discharge it. These were the circumstances under which
the charge was made, and he apprehended that, after the
witnesses were examined; they could have very little doubt
that the prisoner was guilty of assaulting her Majesty. The
Attorney-General then went on to explain the law upon the
subject of assaults, and concluded by calling witnesses to
support the charge.
Charles Edward Dasset saw the prisoner come from the
crowd on the morning of Sunday, the3d of July, and present
a pistol at the carriage in which the Queea was seated, and
seized him. The brother of the last witness, Frederick
Augustus Dassett, and several other witnesses who were at
the Mall on the occasion in question, were examined, hut
their evidence differed in no respect from the facts which
transpired on the prisoner's apprehension with which every
one is familiar. _ _

Mr. Horry, for the prisoner, took several objectiqps to
the wording of the indictment. The learned counsel con-
tended that if the tobacco pipe with which the pistol was
loaded was capable of doing an injury to her Majesty, the
prisoner ought to have been indicted for high treason. The
offence could not be considered legally as a mere misdemean-
our. An assault on the refining Sovereign was always con-
sidered to amount to theerime of high treason. Her Ma-
jesty was not aare of the assault, and, therefore, he
submitted no common assault could be substantiated. He
submitted that the charge was one of high treason and not
misdemeanour ; and that, as no assault had been proved,
the prisoner was entitled to an acquittal.
The Attorney-General was about to reply, when Lord
Abinger said, the prisoner firing, or attempting to fire, a
pistol at the royal carriage, must be for the purpose of alarm-
ing and frightening her Majesty, and, therefore, amounted
to an assault. The offence of high treason could not be sup-
ported, unless it was shown that the party intended or com-
passed the death of the Sovereign. He considered the in-
dictment sufficient in all respects to support the charge
against the prisoner, and, therefore, the legal objections
must be overruled.
Mr. Horry addressed the jury for the prisoner, ridiculing
the idea that he intended any injury to the Queen, as he was
one of the most mild and least offensive of her Majesty's
subjects. He contended, that the evidence did not substan-
tiate the charge, and called two or three witnesses, one of
whom swore that the prisoner did not aim the pistol at the
carriage. Other witnesses gave the prisoner a good charac-
ter as being a mild, peaceable, and inoffensive youth.
John William Bean, the father of the prisoner, stated that
he was unable to employ*an attorney to defend his son. (The
prisoner here wept bitterly.) The habits of his son were
peculiarly mild : be had never beard him express any harsh
language or expression towards the Queen, but quite the
reverse.
The Attorney-General replied. A great deal had been
said about the prisoner being a cripple, of diminutive size,
and extreme weakness. Now, he admitted all that ; but it
was proved in evidence, that he had sufficient strength to
pull a trigger, which, had; the pistol exploded, might have
proved fatal. From the conduct of the prisoner himself,
both before and after the attempt, it was evident he meditated
some attack upon her Majesty. He said in his letter to his
father, that he should do something desperate, perhaps, led
away with the idea that he should be provided for in some
such way as another individual had been.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and Lord Abinger
sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment.
The trial lasted six hours, during which the court was ex-
cessively crowded.

SPECIAL COMMISSION FOR THE TRIAL OF
THE YORKSHIRE RIOTERS.

In the Crown Court at the current Yorkshire Assizes, on
Thursday last, before Mr. Justice Maule. the Hon. Mr.
WORTLEY, Q.C., rose to make an application founded upon
an affidavit which he held in his hand. The affidavit was
made by the Solicitor t 8 the Treasury, and the learned gen-
tleman's motion was that the several prisoners who had been
committed to York Castle since the opening of the Commis-
sion of Assize, charged with riots and other offences com-
mitted during the recent disturbances in various parts of the
West Riding, might remain in custody in the Castle, on their
commitments, until the proclamation of a special commission
which it was the intention of Her Majesty's advisers to re-
commend her Majesty to issue. The affidavit of the Solicitor
to the Treasury stated that there were already one hundred
and eleven prisoners committed for trial, besides fifty-six
others who had been committed to York Castle for further
examination on the Ist of September next ; in addition to
others who were in custody, and who were expected to be
committed for trial is a short time. The deponent also
stated that there had not been time to transmit the whole of
the depositions taken before the comrOtting magistrates to
the Home Office, from which depositions alone a proper
classification of the cases could be made. In addition, the
deponent anticipated that further important evidence against
some of the prisoners would be obtained, but which, from the
shortness of the time, and the disturbed state of the district,
it had been impossible to get together. Now he (Mr.
Wortley) apprehended that there waa nothing extraordinary
in a motion of this sort—for pet sons to be detained upon their
commitments, and their trials to be postponed—when justice
was likely to fail for want of time to procure evidence.
Although his lordship was sitting there under a commission
to deliver the gaol, yet a discretionary power was possessed
by him in circumstances of a special nature like these. In
the case of the special commission at Derby, in 1817, the
commission, under which her Majesty's Justices sat, was one
of general gaol delivery ; yet the judges on that occasion pro-
ceeded with the trials of the state prisoners, leaving the re-
mainder of the prisoners in the gaol on that occasion upon
their commitments, until the regular gaol delivery. No ob-
jection was raised on that occasion, and he humbly hoped
that the same course would be followed now.
Mr. Justice M AIME said that having sat for a fortnight,
and with the probability of sitting for another fortnight, he
bad no wish to prolong the assizes ; but he did think the
affidavit insufficient to justify the application, as it did not
specify any particular prisoners, nor did it state, except in a
loose way, that other evidence was likely to be forthcoming.
It merely stated that it was believed that important evidence
might be expected, but it did not shew the existence of any
grounds for expecting it. This amounted to nothing at all.
Mr. WORTLEY said the affidavit alleged that there had not
been sufficient time to obtain copies of all depositions, to
peruse those which bad been obtained, so as to classify the
cases and to prepare the indictments necessary to prosecute
the several prisoners.
Mr. Justice MAVLE said that certainly one circumstance
ill favour of the application was that a special commission
vTould be promptly issued, and that the prisoners would not
be kept long in custody. There was a difference between
the case referred to by Mr. Wortley and the present, as at
Derby the ordinary prisoners only were left upon their com-
mitments at the close of the special commission, while here
it was sought to detain persons at the close of an ordinary
gaol delivery. He did not think he could make any order,
until he had heard what the prisoners referred to had to say
upon the subject, and therefore the motion must stand over
for the present.—Leeds Intelligencer.
[The application was renewed on Friday, and refused,—
Mr. Justice Manic saying that there could be no doubt of
his being sufficiently tired of these protracted assizes by the
time the ordinary calendar was disposed of, but lie was sit-
ting under a commission now in active operation, which
charged him to deliver the gaol, and he felt that he was in
duty bound to do so, as long as his commission existed and
there were prisoners for trial. He had consulted Lord Den-
man, who was of the same opinion. No doubt the power
that set them in motion could stay their proceedings, but
he could only proceed till his duty was by some means pro-
perly terminated.)