The Atherstone, Nuneaton, and Warwickshire Times. — 1882-02-11 (Atherstone, Warwickshire, England)

GRAND.TURY : the Hon. Ernest James Seymour (foreman), the Hon Charles Leigh Adderley, Messrs. Robert Needham Philipi, Darwin Galton, J. Boughton Dugdale, H. Raleigh King, Henry Hunt, J. Machen, Kelynge Greenway, W. Fielding Harding, J. Yeomans Robins, T. Aloysius Perry, W. Willes, F. W. Arkwright, H. H Chattock, J. C. Harter, J. Hatherall, H. Chance, W. A. Pennington, J. Darlington, F. Gerrard, Beauchamp Scott, and W. C. Austin. In charging the Grand Jury his Lordship said he had the pleasing duty to congratulate them upon the light character of the calandar which would presently be submitted to them. For the last four years the average number of prisoners at these Assizes had been forty, whereas there were now twenty-eight. He was pleased to say that not Only was the calendar -light in the number of prisoners, but it was also light in character of the crimes it contained. There was no cafes of murder, arson, rape, or brutal violence. Alluding to the cases of manslaughter, his lordship said the charge against Hodgkiss, Bagnall, Price, Bruvra, and Carney, of having killed James Highland in a prize-fight at Wishaw, raised the question whether a mere spectator at a prize-fight could be indicted as aiding and abetting. There was a case, of which probably they were well aware, which had attracted considerable attention on account of the proceedings to which it had given rise. It occurred in Berkshire, and was now under the consideration of the Court of Criminal Appeal. There was a difference of opinion in the Court, and until judgment had been given he should continue to advise juries according to his own view of the law, which was that the mere presence of a person at a prize-fight was not in itself aiding and abetting of that which was going on. But of course the presence of a person at such a fight must be taken in connection with the surrounding circumstances, which might affect particular individuals and make all the difference ; and in every case it was the province of the jury to determine whether these particular circumstances applied to a certain person, and so brought him within the law. There would, of course, be no difficulty in determining that the seconds at a fight were aiding and abetting ; those who held the stakes, & fired the ropes forming the ring, or paid for admission to see the fight, or travelled to and from the fight with the combatants were aiding and abetting. In this case the fight occurred at Wishaw, near Birmingham to which place the parties travelled in a van. Some twenty or thirty persons formed the party, and the fight lasted for about in hour and a half, when it was interrupted by the police. Evidence would be produced showing that one or the persons charged was a combatant with the dead man, and the other four returned to Birmingham in the van which was engaged to carry the party to and !torn the fight. If they thought that , the accused were encouraging the fight by their presence, they would return a true bill. The deceased died from intlamation of the lungs, and it was necessary to remember that the medical witness was of opinion that the blows which lie received might have produced, the inflamation. On the other hand it appeared that the unhappy man was stripped for a considerable time on the morning of the fight, and that he also drank a large quantity of spirits, which might also have induced the disease. After a brief reference to some of the other cases in the calendar, the Judge dismissed the Grand Jury to their room.—True bills were shortly afterwards returned, and the Court than proceeded with the TRIALS dr