Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1872-10-05 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

CHARON OF ASSAULT. - George Owens, butcher, was charged by Ann Cowell, married woman, with assaulting her on the 29th ult., and also by Mr Saggerson with being drunk in Dacre-street on the same day. The complainant who was a middle aged woman had two very black eyes. The defendant who was represented by Mr Bainbridge is a young man. The fcllowing is the statement of the complainant as given to Sergeant Sample yesterday, Ann Cowell, wife of John Cowell, of No. 4, Grahamstreet, saith, as follows :—On Saturdaynight the 28th inst., between 10 and 11 p.m., was in company with Margaret Samson, and we met the prisoner and another man named Hunter in the Market Place. Hunter spoke to me about a Mrs Tinkler who formerly lived in Chapmans yard, Dacre-street. After having some conversation I and the prisoner Hunter, and Mrs Samson went to the house of the latter in Chapmans yard, Dacre-street. I remained there aeont half an hour and during that time I had one glass of wine. When I went into this house there was a Mrs Graham and another man there. I then left the house and pro- ' ceeded to my own in Graham-street, the prisoner following me into the market, where I lost sight of him. On arriving home, I went to bed. After being there about three quarters of an hour, I heard some one in the room downtstairs. I got up to see who it was. On coming down stairs, I found the prisoner lying on tke floor. He at once got up and took hold of me, and tried to take liberties with me. I struggled  with him to :prevent him from doing so. He then struck rae several times on the head and face, knocking me down. Whilst I was down the prisoner tried again to take liberties with me. When I tried to shout, he put his hand over my mouth, and prevented me from doing so. All the struggling took place in the dark. I then got free from the prisoner and crept under a table where the prisoner failed to find me and where I waited until he fell asleep. I then slipped out ef the house and went to the' police office where I gave information of what had taken place. Two officers came back with me and I gave the prisoner into custody, during the time I waestruggling with the prisoner I received several severe blows on my head face and body. I never saw the prisoner before. Cross-examined by Mr Bainbridge: The prosecutrix 1 said she did not invite Hunter to go with her. She went to the " Live and let live" beerhonse, in Deere- 1 street, where Mrs Samson had furnished rooms. She 1 did not tell her young men to go to her back door. Her husband was master of the " Viceroy " steamtug. There was meat on the table at Mrs Somer's sufficient for three or four people, but she did not go for it. She had only had one glass of wine that afternoon, and was perfectly sober. Inspector Mauer said that about three o'clock on Sunday morning the prisoner was brought to the police-office by Sergeant 1 Tomlin accompanied by Mrs Cow-11. She stated that the prisoner had got into her house and tried to ravish her, and that because she resisted he abused her. This took place she said between ten and eleven o'clock on the previous evening, but she did not give information sooner, as the prisoner threatened to murder her if she shouted. Mrs Cowell was very drunk, and had apparently been beastly drunk.—Sergt. Tomlin gave similar testimony.—A Mrs Graham deposed that she called on Mrs Samson to give her a cake on Saturday night. There was an old missionary there. (Laughter.) In an hour and a half she went back again. There was a tall man and a young man present. Mrs Samson said that Mrs Cowell had gone out for meat. Mr Bainbridge said the real facts of the case were—that the defendant spoke to the complainant in the market-place. She asked him to go to Mrs Samson's to get drink, which was paid for by defendant and Hunter, who also paid for the meat which Mrs Cowell fetched. Complainant induced the glefendant to accompanA him home, and the first thing he remembered was the policeman finding him on the hearth stone in her house. The evidence for the complainant was so conflicting that the Bench dismissed the charge of assault, each party to pay their own costs. Defendant was then fined lOs fid for 1 being drunk.