The Kenilworth Advertiser. — 1880-01-17 (Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England)

THE RIOTING AT BEDWORTH.—Thomas Wale (27), William Neale, Arthur Martin, and Jonathan Smith (on bait) were indicted for having, at the parish of Bedworth, on the 10th December, 1870, together with others to the number of 300 and upwards, committed a riot and disturbance, and did then and there assault and beat Richard Wood, Herbert Brocklehurst, and others.—Mr. Colmore (instructed by Mr. Wilks), and Mr. Hugo Young (instructed by Mr. Homer) defended.—The whole of ' the prisoners pleaded guilty, with the exception of Martin.—Mr. Colmore, in opening the case, said the jury had heard by the indictment read that the prisoners were charged with committing a riot. To that indictment three of the prisoners had pleaded guilty, and when they had heard the evidence which would be adduced against Martin he thought the jury would think they had acted wisely in so doing, They had now to consider whether Martin was in the assemblage in question, and was one of the men that took part in the riot. It was a singular fact, but almost every witness he should call would speak to Martin being there and taking an active part in the riot. The evidence he would produce would be to the following effect :—There had been a dispute between the colliers and their masters. Some of the men returned to work on the masters' terms, and on the day in question, while six of those men were returning home from the Charity Cclliery, they  were shouted at gni hissed by a large crowd of the men on strike, who bad assembled in the marketplace. A large police force, under Supt. Thomas, was on duty, but notwithstanding this, stones and brickends were thrown, two men named Wood and Brocklelaurst being severely out—one by a blow from a stick, and the other by a large stone having struck him. Quietude was eventually restored, and the prisoners were arrested early on the following morning.—After the case had proceeded some way, the prisoner Martin withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty.—Mr. Young appealed for leniency, and Mr. Colmore, for the prosecution, said he would consent on the part of the prosecution to Neale and Smith being bound over, and to come up for judgment when called upon.—The Deputy-Chairman, in passing sentence, said the magistrates had earnestly considered the case against the prisoners. He thought they were mcst fortunate in having so able and judicious counsel to defend them, and the magistrates were willing to attend to the suggestions made on their behalf by Mr. Young, and to the suggestions made by the counsel for the prosecution, on behalf of Neale and Smith. He could see by the depositions that Martin and Wale had acted very badly indeed, and it was only by the mercy of God that murder had not been committed on that occasion. The magistrates had tak.ai into consideration the fact that the prisoners had pleaded guilty, and that they now expressed their sorrow for what was done. Martin and Wale had been guilty of a grievous sin. and must be severely punished. They would ba sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Neale and Smith's cc.nduct appeared less serious, and the Court were willing to listen to the suggestion made, and not pass any sentence of imprisonment on tLern, but order them to enter into their own recognisances, and to find two sureties of £lO each to come up for judgment when called upon