The Sun. — 1846-07-11 (London, England)

ASSIZE INTEL GENCE.  HOME, CIRCUIT, II erqford, July 10. (Before Mr. Justice et-..-.ILTMAN). George Pallett, aged 4S, was ccapitally indicted for feloniously cutting and wound, tn Mary Ann Pallett, his wife, with intent to murder Ler. In other counts, the intent of the prisoner was laid to be to maim and disable, or to do, previous bodily harm. Mr. Rodwell prosecuted; Mr.- Marsh defended the prisoner. The prosecutrix, who appear red to be very weak from the effects of the injury she h:sd received, deposed that the prisoner was her husband, Ir.nd they resided at Great Munden, where they kept a baker's and general shop. On Thursday morning, the 25th of June, they were sitting at breakfast together, when the prisoner asked her whether she intended to bake on the next day or Saturday, and she replied that it would depend upon when she could get some good yeast. The prisoner then told her she had better bake the next day, for she would not be alive on Saturday. She replied that she supposed her time was God's, unless he intended to murder her. He then said, that there were two persons he should like to be the death of, her, and her brother, The prisoner then went out and did not retnrn till between ten and eleven o'clock, and she then saw him go into a shed and get a bill-hook, and he commenced sharpening it. Nothing took place between them after this until one o'clock, when she was engaged in the shop serving a customer, and the prisoner came in with the bill-hook in his hand. He then, without saying a word, threw some dour in her face, and upon the customer saying that he nlight have thrown the flour in her eyes, the prisoner, with an oath, said that she ought to have her eyes pet out for wasting his flour. A few minutes after this, she was in the act of scraping up the flour at the bottom of a bin, and while she was in a stooping position, with her head partly on the bin, she received a blow from the bill• hook on her neck, which rendered her instantly insensible, and she fell to the ground, and knew nothing of what happened afterwards. In cross-examination, the prosecutor said that they had been married 22 years, and some years ago the prisoner was attacked with erysipelas, and went out of his mind, and continued in that state for several weeks, during which time he was under restraint, She also said, that a few months ago he had a similar attack, but as it was not so bad as the former one, he was allowed to remain in his own house. He was in the habit of drinking to excess, and while in that state, was very violent, and she had at times heard him talk very incoherently. Upon another occasion, the prisoner had attacked her with a carving knife, and she was forced to run out of the house to save her life. He was quite sober when he told her she would n)t live till Saturday, and he said it quite quietly. They had not had any quarrel on the day in question, and although she saw the bill-hook in his hand, she bad not the slightest idea that he intended to strike her with it until she felt the blow. Some other witnesses were examined, and from their evidence it appeared, that after the occurrence the prisoner had walked deliberately out into the village, with the bloody weapon in his hand, and stated to several persons what he had done. Mr. MARSH, on behalf of the prisoner, addressed the jury at considerable length, contending that the circum stance of itself, and the other evidence as to the former state of the accused, left no doubt that he was an irresponsible agent, and that he ought to be acquitted on that ground. Mr. Justice COLTMAN having summed up, the jury, after deliberating for more than an hour, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity.