The Sun. — 1850-08-19 (London, England)

WIG HTMAN.) James Smith, aged 16, way charged with having on the 17 ch of April last feloniously assaulted his mistress, Mrs. Hannah Knight, with a knife, with intent to murder her, or to do her some grievous., bodily harm. Mr. Pollock appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Monk far the defence. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was the wife of a pawnbroker carrying on business ire Butler-street, Manchester, and that in April last the prisoner, who had been in her husband's service about six months, was accused of having stolen sy. from a drawer. After this, on the 17th of April, about 9 o'clock in the morning, as the prosecutrix was sitting in the kitchen with her back to the scullery, in which the prisoner was at that time engaged, she suddenly felt the arm of some person placed round her neck and a knife plscsd against her throat. She immediately put up her hands in self defence to protect her throat, and seized hold of the knife, and effer a struggle both fell to the ground, and immediately the person who had attacked her, and whom she did not see, ran away, and she heard the prisoner crying out, " Oh, Mrs. Knight," and run through the scullery into the yard, and thence into the street crt big out "Murder." To the best of her belief the person who assaulted her was the prisoner. Her throat was scratched but did not bleed, and her hands were cut. A knife was afterwards found in the scullery with blood. upon. it. She had never had any quarrel with the prisoner. The Learned Counsel for the prisoner submitted that the evidence would not sustain the charge in the indictment, as the wounds on the hands of the prosecutrix had been made by herself in struggling with the person who had attacked her, and the scratch on the throat did not come within the legal definition of a wound, and was not a felony within the Act. He referred to the case of "R. v. Beckett," 1 M. and R., 526. The Learned Counsel for the prosecution contended, that it was a sufficient wounding within the statute if the jury were satisfied that it was the prisoner's intention) to wound the prosecutrix in the throat, and that her hands were cut in her struggle to prevent it. His LORDSHIP was of opinion that the evidence would not support the charge of wounding within the meaning of the statute, as the skin of the prthecutrix's neck had not been cut, and the cuts on her hands might have been made by herself in the struggle which had taken place. The case must be dealt with therefore as an assault. The L.:.arned Counsel for the prisoner then addressed the jury in his defence, and Ills LORDSHIP having summed up, The jury found the prisoner Guilty, with a recom• mendation to mercy. Sentence was deferred. Edward Walsh was charged wieh having, on the 6th of September last, aided and abetted in the manslaughter of Richard Lilly. Mr. Monk appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoner wits undefended. It appeared that on the 6th of last September a prize fight tia.lc place at Crossness, near Manchester, between Richard Lilly (he deceased) and John Middleton' on which occasion the prisoner acted as the second of Lilly. The fight lasted two hours, and shoAly after its termination Lilly died in consequence of the injuries he had received. In the course of the fight the prisoner had picked up the deceased several times, as his second. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, expressed a ,trong opinion on the illegality and brutality of prize fiatlVs ; as, however, thsre appeared to have been no circumstances of unfairness, and the deceased had been the aggressor, he should only sentence the prisoner to be imprisoned one fortnight.