Lent Assizes.
The Times, 1824-03-08T00:00:00

These assizes comnimenced at nloon, this day, before 31r. Justice ,PARI; and Mr. Barou GAIRnow, the formier presiding in thie Criminal C(ourt, the latter at Nrivi 1'riiis: only six causes were entered for ttial, bht the calc.dar contained 47 prisoners. FRIDAY, IMARCR .5. (Brire lAWt .JUSlicC PARK.) .JIaln I'aPrcrand R ichard Iiardingv ere incdicted under Lord El1 Ienborough-s act, ior eloniously cutting William Cox, constable of Burtord. with.a sharp instrument, with intent to murder hinm; ano- ther couint laid the intent to mnaiii and disfigure * and a thirtd laid the intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Villiam Cox, the prosecutor, stated that lie was constable of Bur. ford. O:i the 19th ot Deceniber he had a warrant to appreihend Packer fSr an assault. lie took him, hut he escaped by fording a river. In the evening, the prosecutor heard that Packer was at the Six Bells. and went with others to sceure hin. As he entered, he saw Packer attenmting to make hiis escape by a back door; sprang along the paisage, and seized him bv tihe coat, exclaiming, " John, I have got you ; you must go no further." lie turned round, struck the prosecutor, swore he would uiur(ler himi, and threw him down on a settle. (Cox rose, a scuiflc ensued, both fell, and Packer called to Hasding toassist him. While Cox was on the ground he received blows trom Harding on the back of his head, but how occasioned, he could not say. Allotlher constable noiv came up Packer snatched his staff'away, struck hiii over the neck and slioulders, andt he fell down. Both prisoners then belaboured himn with their staves; lie suflfred from loss of blood: they dragged him into the kitclien, and beat hiln again; he was very weak, and wras able only to see tlhemi escaping through tie windaw. On cross-exanmination, the witness said that the principal blows inflicted on hinm wvere given with the staves sniatchied from the constables. Mr. Justicc PARit here stiggested the proprietv of calling the sur- geonatonce, that it might be known at once whether the wounds were of the description contemsplated by the statute. Mr. Willimiu Pitt said, lie was a surgeen at Burford, and visited Cox on tte evening when the blows were given. He foundi hbn in- sensible; his hair inatted with blood; aii(l four wounds on the back of his hcad, wiich appeared to be incised wounds ; the longest more than two inciLs in length. They were calculated to produce dan- geroiis results. In hisjudgusent they could not have been inflicted vwith a blunt instruinent, because in that casc there would have been swejlHngg. They iiiight have been inflicted with the sharp cdge of a poker. On cross-examinadon, the witness said, lie did not tbilk that a constable's staff could have produced the wounils ; they were all of the same character; all inflicted by the saue kind of weapon. He should equally expect tumours if the wounds had been inflictel by a sharpinstrument,and afterwa:tis thehead beaten with ablunt weapon. ir. Justice PARK 5aid, that supposing the wounds to have been inflicted with a poker, he should hold the case within the statute; because it had been decided that if an incised *vound was catised by an iron bar, it was within the act; but if the wound were rontused or lacerated, the words "stab or cat" would not apply. IMir. Cuoss wvho conducted the prosecutions thln Ma11cd Witnesses to show that the poker lia(d beel uscd; but they did isot satisfac. torily prove it. Mr. Justice PASRK m then thoughlt, that as there was no proof that any instrument wvas employed butt a constable's statR, and as the rea- son of the surgeon for regarding the wvoands as incised wounds failed,thepuisoners were entitled to an acquittal-of the capital cliarge. The Jury accordingly returued a verdict of ANot Guilth1. The prisoners th en stood charged, Peacker -on two indictments, Hlarding on one, for violently assaulting the constables in the execu- tion of their duty. By the advise of their couesel, they pleadLd ' Jr. Justice PARE., after observing that but fer the legal objectiou on the capital charge, their lives would have been probably forfeited sentenced Packer to be itnpriuoned and kept to hard labour for I8 months, and Harding for a year. .fichard Higgs, an olti man of seventy, atid Thlomas 4ias, his fatherstabbed bitn to th We hfiar W jillgi iWpigs; The horse was skinned,. boiled, and g4 x ,t,)semt-e>a-T e was bgAled its the mzvnmiri,nt be!theaiVJ&Awss ')11 i~he skin was put in a room in Riehkr h : "ie, th&son's wife 'and young children then wcreliving. I did n'oet tl this story betore because I was afraid of amy life. I was on and off sathr employ till about a year ago. Cross-examined by Mr. CultwoonD.-I never heard that I was the greatest liar in tne county. I esteem'myself an honest man. M1r. Coates livedelose by, and I could have told him in half an hour. I told this secret about three weeks ago. .(A laugh.j AIlr. Justice PAtx here stopped the case, and said, it was quite trifling to go further. The story was most ridiculoun, and -unworthy of a moment's credit. The jury immediately acquifted the prisoners. Toanwa )i, -s,wtheton, wasthen charged 'hiarson in setting fire to a haystack., the property of Mlr. Th6mai 'or n andMr. John Price, on the 19th of August, 1818. Mr. CROSS stated the case, and imPputed as a motive revenge for theenclosure of Otmoer,in which the precutors took an activepart. Mlr. John Price said, in August, 1818, he wan, jointly with Mr. Horn, possessed of a haystsck, on one of the allotmenta if Oainoor. The witness had taken part in the act of enclosure. 'The prisoner resided in a neighbouring cottage, where he had lived eiet since. On the night of the 19th of Asneust the rick 'was all on fire ; it had been safe the day before. There was haum all round itp which was not so before. About half the ricks worth"aboget 4OL; ,'asburnt. Cross-exawined.-The rick was iade int OctObertwelIver4ogthb. Ann ilggs, a distant relation of the prisoners, -said, on the evenitm of a hot summer's day, about. three y#is ago, I' walked down Into Otmoor to look afterpgeee. Thomais H;gs. was loUng- ing on the ground ; we talkedtof eajioda 'bjets,. amongst others of the flourishing state 'of thd hedge 'of one of the enclosures. He said, " I did,a little job down heres'" Ireplied, -" You had better keep your thoughts ands actiens t6d,srself - I want to hear nothing about it." He said he 'was not afftoltd te .lellkme, for I never told anything." He then said all at onc;','t et fite to thdbhsyceks." I said, " Good God, do you, kasothe , uio gunrce of 'what you are saying ?" 'Hesaid he hadacariied:isiden of hauinidow n, and with' that he lighted it aULround', and'he then tanawny's fisqt as he could-he never looked back,'but it flBi'F lie' hel. On londay, the l6th ofFebruarylast, Iheardhis father at 'hiho>' h I stood on my own door-way, out of doors.' 'The father, WiT, "' Yoa rogue, you set the ricks on fire, you rogue; donlt -y6u' remerober how you called me out of bed to see howv itowered utp ?' I heardtno more. Cross-examined by I Mr. C]woo;Rwv.-AMy husband anid I are first cousins to the prisoner. 'We were very good' friends once. I ceased to associate with tlhem, because I tbought them dangerous, two years ago. I told in consequence of a quarrel which Ihad with his son Milr. Justice PARK here stopped the ease and directedan acquittal, observing that the testimony was quite awful The jury immediately found the prisoner Not Guilty. Before Mr. Baroni GARROV. WEAVER V. LLOYD. This was an action by theplaintiff, a nmerceratAbingdon, against the defendint, an attorney practising at the same place, for a libel on his character, contained in a letter addressed anonymously to the editor of the O(rford Herald, and inserted in that paper of the 5th of July. The libel imputed to the plaintiff very barbarous conduct to a horse on the 28th of the preceding June at Oxford; that after dining there and drinking a large quantity of wine, he set out on his road to Abingdon, but returned, rode furiously about the streets of Oxford, beating the horse and spurring him excessively, and after- wards rode home, where it was found that the horse's eye was beaten out, and where the plaintiff was so sensible of the brutality of his own conduct, that he locked up the horse, and refused to let any one see him. The defendant pleaded, besides the general itssue, ajusti- fication, setting forth specially the allegations of the libel as facts, and a general plea, alleging that the matters of the libel were true in substance and effect," on which issues were severally taken. Mr.JERvis (with whom were Mr. SergeantPs<1zE and F r. CRoss) opened thecaseon behalf of the plaintiff, whorm he repre- sented as seeking redress for a grievous imputation on his ciaracter, aggravated by the subsequent conduct of the defendant, and bv the justification which he now sought to establish. It was proved that the letter, in the handwriting of Mr. Lloyd, was received by Messrs. Milunday and Slatter, the proprietors of the Oxford Heralil, and with some verbal alterations, whicl they were authorized to miiake, inserted in their journal of the 5th of July. .A fortnight afterwards the defendant addressed another letter to the editor, in which lie atlmittedl thathe was mistaken in asserting tuat the eye of the horse was literally knocked out, but insisted that all his other statements were accurate. Witnessss were called who stated that the horse in question was very restive and unisanageable; Ihat his eye was never knocked out; and that the' plaintiff did not lock him up, and refuse to allow any one to see birn. Sir. TAUNTON (with whom were Mr. RUSSELL and Mfr. BiciiEpeu), for the defendant, calledseveral witnesses, who alleged that they saw the plaintiff%iolently spur,'beat, and illtreat the horse; that he was apparently in a state of inebriation ; and that the people who saw him in Oxford cried out, " Sliame' on him, aid-expressedl a wish to punish him). Mr. JEitvts replied, Ilr. Baron GARtROV charged the jurr, that the plaintiff was, at all events, entitled to a verdict, on the justiicaftion setting forth the facts specially, as there were two wilicl tcse dlefendant lhad clearly failed to cstablish_that the horse's eve was knocked out, and that lie was concealed from the sight of visiters. If,' liowever, they thought all the rest proved, and that these did not alter the " sub- stance and eact" of the libel, they might find For the defendant on the la-it special lea, icaving its effect to the judgment of the Court. III estimnting thc aimiount of the damages, they would.consider whe- thtr the charge was groundless or greatly exaggerated, or vhetlter it sas founded on circutinstances derogatory to the plaintiff's cha- racter. The jury, (whichl %sac special), after a short deliberation, found a verdict for the plaintiff_Damages, one shilling, expressing their opinion, that the two allegations alluded to by the learned Judge were not proved; hut that the plea, alleging the charges to be true in substance and effect," was supported. On this finding, the learned Judge gave leave to the defendant to nmove the Court for judgmient tot obstaumrc veredicto in the ensuing terni. This case lasted till eight in the evenittg, when the assizes con- cluded. LE,NT ASSIZES. OXFORD. TImuRSDAY. MAnIIrt d