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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.  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 refused, and 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 her, and wanted her to go with him to Worcester, and 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 knelt upon her, and tried to cut her throat, but she prevented 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 together 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. Several other witnesses were examined, from whose testimony it appeared that on the Saturday night the prisoner had been very much excited on account of his wife's refusartolive with him, and had said that he should kill his wife and be hung for it, and that her body would be seen coming down the river. It appeared that there were five slight wounds inflicted on the face of the prosecutrix; and immediately the prisoner had left her he had cut his own throat and inflicted a wound nearly three inches in length, but not sufficient to separate the windpipe, or to do himself mortal injury. He then ran down to the river and attempted to drown himself, and was taken out of the water in a state of insensibility. In a few hours he recovered, and his first inquiry, on coming to his senses, was, " How is my dear Mary ?" He then appeared very sorry for what he had 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 on himself was a much more serious wound. It appeared that when taken into custody the prisoner had a small scratch on the side of his face, and it was suggested on his part that the affair arose out of 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 found the prisoner guilty of unlawfully wounding. Mr. Justice Willes said, the jury had taken a very lenient view of the prisoner's case, and that if lie had been found guilty of the felony he (Mr. Justice 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 Jury.)