Weekly News. — 1891-02-19 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

DORSET ASSIZES.  These Assizes commenced at the Shirehall. Dorchester, on Tuesday, before the Lord Chief Justice. His Lordship arrived on the previous &afternoon, and was met at the station by the High Sheriff and the various officers of the county. The Judge attended Divine service at St. Peter's Church. The Grand Jury was composed of the following gentlemen :—Mr W E Brymer (foreman), Captain Fyler, Colonel Paget, Major Hawkesworth, Captain Russell, Mr 'Sullen, Captain Pretor, Mr Pinney, * W Relies Fryer, Mr C E Parke, Major Groves, Colonel folly, Geseral Deane, Sir H S Marriott, Me M S Williams, Mr G H Gordon Mr C F S Sanctuary.' Major Bullen, Mr H Stilwell, Mr T E D Philpott, Mcf.asan, Dr Laurie, and Mr Thresher. In bib charge, the Judge remarked on the slight nature of the calendar as regarded numbers, h 4 regretted that there were two or three cases of groat gravity and interest contained in it. In two of the • cases a very serious arson had been perpetrated. This was a class of crime which was possibly upon the increase, and where deliberate and in. • tentional malice was proved, it could -be too severely dealt with. Alluding to the charge of abduction against Massarella, an Italian, his lordship said the jury would have to consider whether the girl in question had been removed from the care of those who had lawful custody of her. ge painted out that the consent of the girl was quite immaterial, this being an offence different to that eons' prised under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and also different to that class of civil misconduct which gave rise to an action of seduction. In this particular ease there might be some legal difficulties, for it WS one quite out of the common way. The girl had a mother, and to have removed her from the mother's custody would, undoubtedly, have been an offence against the statute ; but she was out in service, was allowed by her master to go home to see her mother, and it was whilst she was away from her master that the alleged abduction took place. It would, therefore, be difficult to say whether the possession at the time was that of the mother or the master, or whether: n truth, it could be said that she was in the possession of either at the time. After detailing a few of the facts, his Lordship advised the Grand Jury to return a true bill and leave the legal questions to be dealt with as they arose. The other case was also very important • and gave rise to curious and interesting questions. An unattached engine was taken to Broadstone from Bournemouth for shunt.. lag purposes, and gat in the way of a train from Bath, with the result that a collision took place, and • poor woman was killed. It was charged that the engine driver was guilty of her manslaughter. The Coroner's jury found him guilty, and the indictment would now be presented to them. The connection between the cause of the collision and the consequences was not so clear as it usually was in these cases. There was no doubt that the light engine got in the way of the train from Bath, but it was not so direct that the engine man, who was accused of the death of the woman, had the slightest notion his act would lead to consequences such as transpired. Indeed, he imagined that he was as much surprised, and as much grieved by the result of his negligence, if negligence it was, as anyone of them could be. Therefore, any direct connection between what he did, and the consequences he produced, was out of the question. He did not know what the consequences would be, but nevertheless he might be guilty of manslaughter, and upon very s good grounds. Manslaughter was a very wide and elastic term, and it included the unlawful taking away of the life of a fellow creature under circumstances which might sometimes be little more than accident, whilst sometimes they might differ very little indeed froni wilful murder. It was, his Lordship pointed out, manslaughter to bring about the death of a fellow creature by what had been described over and over again as culpable negligence. Negligence alone would not do—it must be culpable negligence. What was culpable negligence must be left to the common sense of the jury, and, therefore, he recommended the Grand Jury to return a true bill, without considering any legal aspects of the case. A