The Sun. — 1859-08-01 (London, England)

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—SHREWSBURY, July 28. (Before Mr. Justice Willes) Francis Hopwood, 21, engine driver, was charged with cutting and wounding his wife, Mary Hopwood, with intent to murder her ; also with intent to do her grievous bodily harm, on the 10th of April, 1859, at Ludlow. Mr. Bailey appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Cook Evans defended the prisoner. It appeared that the . prisoner was an engine driver, who for some weeks had been living at Worcester. His wife, the prosecutrix, who was married to -him in October; 1857, was living at Ludlow, and on Wednesday, the 6th of April last, the prisoner went there to see her, and wanted her to go with him to Worcester to live with him. The prosecutrix refus,d, end she and the prisoner appeared to have quarrelled together on Saturday night, and in the course of the quarrel the prisoner seized her by the throat and held her till she fainted. In consequence of this treatment the prosecutrix - the same night left the house and went to the house where her sister was living at Ludlow, and stayed there till the morning. The next morning, Sunday, the 10th, the prisoner came for hex, and wanted her to go with him to Worcester, end as they were going along he put his back against the wall and said, that before he went any further he wanted to know what she meant to do. The prosecutrix said, she did not mean to live with him any more, and that she would swear the peace against him ; upon which the prisoner immediately struck her several times in the face with a knife. He then got her down and kn.:P.:- upon her, and tried to cut her throa4but she pre an '-sd his doing this by holding her shawl to her neck. Her cries of " murder" brought a man named Lewis. to her assistance, and the prisoner ran away. The prosecutrix was subjected to a long cross-examination, from which it appeared that she and her husband when living toge:nier were always quarrelling, and that the only cause of difference which led to this assault was the desire of the prisoner that she should go and live with him, and her refusal. to consent. "= al other witnesses were examined, from whose i7dt..nony it appeared the on the Saturday. night the prisoner had been ve much excited on ~ccount of his wife's refusal to live with him, and had said that he should kill his wice and be hung for it, and that her body would be seen comina• down the river.. It appeared that there were five slight wounds inflicted on the face of the prosecutrix ; and im cediately the prisoner had left her he had cut his o I throat and inflicted a wound nearly three inches a length, but not sufficient to separate the or to do himself mortal injury, He thee' ran 6 vn to the river and attempted to dross n him - elf; -and --as •taken out of the water in a state of ioserisibilhyd In a few hours he recovered, and his first 7-query, on cordng to his senses, wr s, " How is my d-ar Mary ?" tie then appeared very sorry for what he' ad done, and was in a very desponding state, and shed tears. The surgeon said.the wounds inflicted on the prosecutrix just severed the skin, while that inflicted by the prisoner oa himself was a much more serious wound. It appeared that when taken into custcly the prisoner had a-small scratch on the side of his face, and it was • suggested on his part that the affair arose out 4f. a quarrel, which the prosecutrix might have aggravated by scratching the prisoner in the face, as it. was proved she had done on the Saturday-previous. Mr. Cook Evans addressed. the jury .for the prisoner, and admitting that a verdict of unlawful wounding could not be resisted, urged that there was nothing to show that the* prisoner - was guilty of the,capital charge of wounding with intent to murder, or of. the felony of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Mr. Justice- Willes summed up the evidence to the jury, and they fmind the prisoner guilty of unlawfully wounding. Mr. Justice Willes said, the jury had taken a very-lenient view of the prisoners case, and that if he had been found guilty of the felony he (Mr. Juatice Willes) would have transported him for life. The prisoner had been twice before convicted of violent assaults-upon women. and he (Mr. Justice Willes) should'therefore give him the utmost punishment which the law allowed, viz., two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. (Before Mr. Justice Byles and a Common Juryd)