The Weekly Gazette for Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool and Cleveland District. — 1883-01-27 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

THE POACHING AFFRAY NEAR MIDDLESBROUGH. On Friday week, at the Langbaurgh (North) Petty Sessions, before Mr Cochrane, Mr Hustler, and Mr J. S. Pennyman, the two men, John Cruikshank and Joan Jones, both powerful fellows, were charged with trespassing in pursuit of game on laud belonging to Mr Bolckow, and also with common assault. Mr J. T. Belk, who appeared to prosecute on behalf of Mr Bolckow's head gamekeeper, Wm. Honeyman, said he might have preferred a more serious charge, and also with refusing to give their names and addresses. Mr Belk then went on to detail the circumstances of the case as they have already appeared in the North-Eastern Daily Gazette. He described how Honeyman found the men ferreting near the Guisborough Railway on the afternoon of the 10th inst. ; how he asked them for their names; how they refused, and went away. He followed, and then, said Mr Belk, a circumstance occurred which he did not attempt to justify from law or any other point, but wnich he thought was excusable. Honey- ' man had been reneatedly threatened that his life should be taken, and the prisoners had committed an assault upon him so serious as to render him insensible. When he came to himself, his mind not being clear after what he had I gone through, he saw the men standing, and believing they were going to turn, he fired his gun, and hit Cruikshank on the leg. He believed Cruikshank was not seriously injured. He ' believed the prisoners wound contend that they did not commit the assault until the keeper threatened to shoot them. He then called William Honeyman, who appeared in the witness-box with a bandage on nis head. He described how he found the prisoners, and what they were doing. He corroborated Mr Balks statement. Ever since the assault he had been under Dr. Green.—ln answer to Cruikshank, he said he did not threaten to shoot him in the first place; he did not threaten to shoot him if he did not stop. Did not threaten on the railway to shoot him. He was about forty yards away when he shot, and not four feet. John Sayer, the ploughman, Charles Harwood, and Andrew Snider gave evidence. Dr. Green, of Eaton, had attended Honeyman, and said he was suffering from a contused wound on the back of the head, caused by a violent blow from a dull, heavy instrument. In defence, Cruikshank said the keeper was not assaulted until he threatened to shoot them. He (Cruikshank) felt very seriously the result of the shooting in the leg, and he would probably feel it as long as he lived. Inspector Silversides was present when Cruikshank was examined, and he saw three shots in the right leg, twelve in the right thigh, and twelve or thirteen in the calf of the left  leg. The Bench found prisoners guilty on both charges. For trespassing they wculd be fined a each, or a month's imprisonment. They regarded the assault as the most grave charge of the two. Honeymem was essaulted, the prisoners thinking no doubt they would get away, but they left him lying insensible on the railway, where he might have been run over by is train. They left him to his fate, and might now have stood charged with murder. They would be imprisoned for two months each with hard labour.