The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-01-12

be charged against the defendant but common assault
yet two serious had been put into the indictment
he complained that documents which had been
coDhdentay placed the hands Of an attorney should
have been shown and openly produced and read court
Mr. Norris was engaged In the matter OF the separation
and the defendant moment OF indignation and In the
excitement Of his affection for his wife, and under the pro-
vocation Of what had taken place. had been induced To
what he could not but say was an assault, but
surely not so serious one TO require three counts
Of indictment 70 define IT, was well, perhaps, how
ever painful that this inquiry had taken place as an ex-
PLANTATION had been afforded which exculpated Mrs. Capron
The then commented upon the evidence at
some length and urged that the offence was one Of
The iury found the defendant guilty the third count
The Assistant Judge and the magistrates retired On
coming into court,
The Assistant Judge in passing sentence observed that
the prisoner had been convicted the third count OF
the Indictment on evidence which could not DO questioned
or for there could have been doubt in the
mind OF any man who had heard that he had committed
an assault upon the prosecutor as he was getting out Of
his carriage the door of the house whence was going to
be married on following day and that the defendant
knew that such was there could be doubt As
circumstances of mitigation good deal had been laid be-
fore the court ne sna s nna M
1858 from which clear that the defendant had lived
i'll terms with his wife, and that in the course OF that
complaints made by her which became the iOunda-
lion of an ecclesiastical suit Those complaints made
the Oath Of July in writing to proctor In order that
he might commence the suit in her behalf and appeared
that Mr. Norris who denied upon oath any criminal
course with lady, had been the Of introducing
her the proctor who conducted that suit On the 9Th
ever the defendant knew with respect his wife was
that time condoncd for he took her back and she ceased
live apart from HIM. II then appeaed that in July,
1854, Mr.. Morris walking with his wife from the
Iepeeter another part Of Paris and passing the
Place Vendome about hlfpas ten O'Clock at night the
defendant rushed at him and struck him with such force
with stick that blood spurted over the dress of Mrs
Norris An investigation before the Police Correctionnele
followed and In the temporary absence Of Mr. Morris in
London, the defendant was fined lO Nothing more &C.
Cured between prosecutor and defendant until the
mer Of 1856, when the circumstances which had been
spoken of at the Exhibition took place Since then
defendant had published in print what he
sdered to be his ground Of complaint against Mr..
Morris, together with statement of what defendant had
at Paris and said at the Exhibition. Nothing
happened until the evening before the marriage of Mr..
Morris when the assault Of which the defendant had
been found guilty was committed II anything mad oc'
Cured between the and Mrs Capron after
donation, or Of which defendant had not been aware at
the time of conformation, in November, 1852 he might
have the ecclesiastical suit But this he had not
done and he had invited Mr. Morris to take that course
which he had adopted. Under these circumstances
the Court was called upon to perform its duty 1t was
quite mpossble-wth every wish to take into account
the idea which the defendant seemed to have had his
mind with respect to alternating circumstanCes-o lose
sight of the character of these proceedings Be-
fore pronouncng the upon which the Court had
determined, he warned the defendant that IT, after the
full discussion which had now taken place and the YER
dict which had been pronounced, he should at any
time repeat this offence, he would undoubtedly be
looked upon by the Court in the same light as felon
was regarded, who, having been convicted OF an Of
fence made his appearance second time before the
court and whose sentence the first occasion OF few
months Imprisonment might, the next be Of many
years. penal servitude Although, therefore, the SEN
tence Of the Court would restrain the liberty Of the
defendant only for short period, yet he should
lie brought before that court again for similar outrage,
for any breach of the law amounting to ndictabe
sdcmeanor against Mr. Norris he would be looked upon
person requirng-not for his own reformation mere
~ but as warning to all ildsposed persons likely TO
break the peace-a punishment at all to be measured
by his present sentence, but totally Of different kind
In the hope therefore, that the defendant would abstain
from any such conduct and at submit to the neces
sty of keeping the peace long he lived in this
try, the Court would pass him the lowest sentence
which, in its estimate of what was due to the public,
be passed. viz that the defendant be imprisoned
twenty days. that he be fined ESQ., and into
his recognzance of 81 0O with two surees of f250
years
The defendant said he had attained his object, and Of
course should not think of anything Of the kind again.
lie was then taken into custody.
The lasted from ten to four O'Clock