Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1880-06-19 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

THE MURDEROUS ASSAULT AT  STOCKTON. COMMITTAL OF THE ACCUSED. Last Saturday morning, the young man, Thos. Cooke, was brought upon remand at the Stockton Borough Police Court before W. Benington, Esq , and Dr. Dale, charged with unlawfully wounding Catherine Boyd with intent on the 13th April.—Mr E. J. Thomas defended.—Since sustaining her injury the woman has been an ivmate of the Hospital, and she was now even unable to be brought to the Court. The prisoner, it will be remembered, left the town after the assault, but was captured at Richmond after a very exciting chase. Dr. Hassell, house surgeon at the Hospital, said the prosecutrix was admitted iu,o the Institution on the 14th April. She had a wound on the left side of the head about four inches above the external part of the ear. It was an incised wound, s.bon:i three inches long, and extending down to the bone. The skull was fracturtd, and the bone was depressed. The injury might have been produced by a brick. The woman had been confined to bed ever since her admission to the Hospital, and the wound was not yet healed. Portions of the bone had been removi.d from the wound. The woman might get better, but she was still in danger. —By Mr Thomas: A brick would be more likely than a poker to cause such a wound. A wound caused by a poker would have been longer. —James Boyd, the husband of the prosecntrix, stated that on the night of the 13th April his son and the prisoner were fighting in Blabk Bnll;yard. The prisoner ultimately went away, but returned after an absence of abont an hour and a half, and commenced to break in the panel of young Boyd's door. The prosecutrix was going down the yard, and the prisoner turned round and said to her, 'You old sod, take that," and threw a brick at ber.—lt struck her on the head, and knocked her down. She lost a large quantity of blood. Next day she went to the Hospital. After throwing the brick the prisoner ran away, but on the following day be came to the house and asked them not to cause him to be taken into custody, and he would pay all expenses. —By, Mr Thomas: I hadn't a poker in my hand that night, nor had my wife a hatchet in hers. The prisoner and my wife had not been quarrelling. The prisoner threw the brick because my wife had ordered him away from in; son.—Thomas Marley gave evidence showing that there was a general row in the early part of the evening, the prisoner getting the ' worst of it at the hands of the Boyds and " Hartlepool Swine." Subsequently the prisoner returned and threw a brick at the proseentrix.—Cross-examined by Mr Thomas, Marley Bali the last witness could not posssibly see the brick thrown, because he was not in the yard. The prisoner did not seem to know what he was doing, as he had "got so much" in tbe row.—Sergeant Wright stated that when he received the prisoner into custody at Richmond he charged him with the offence, and his reply was, "I threw the brick, but I didn'tintend to hit her with it." —Mr Thomas said it would be idle for him to contend, after hearing Marley'e evidence that the prisoner did not throw the brick with intent to do grievous bodily harm had not been proved, and he therefore asked the Bench to deal with the case as an age,ravated assault, and; summarily punish the prisoner.—The Bench thought it was a case for the Assizes, and committed the prisoner for trial. Bail was refused.