The North Wales Chronicle and Advertiser for the Principality

NORTH WALES SPRING ASSIZES. ANGLESEY. The Spring Assizes for the County of Anglesey were opened on Wednesday last, the Judge being the Honble. Sir John Barnard Bytes, Knight. His Lordship arrived in Beaumaris at one o'clock in the afternoon, on horseback. At 4 o'clock he proceeded to the parish church in the splendid new coach of the High Sheriff, George Higgins, Esq., accompanied ty the High Sheriff, and John Williams, Esq., Lnder Sheriff, and escorted by the javelin men in their splendid new suits of livery-blue cloth, trimmed with scalet, (made and furnished by Mr. lyrer, Beaumaris,)—the whole procession having a Tery magnificent appearance. The prayers were read by the Rev. Canon James Williams, Llanfairyn* ghornwy; and the Sheriff's Chaplain, the Rev. T. War- ren Trevor, preached an excellent and appropriate ser- mon, the text being taken from Rom. xiii. 1. THURSDAY. The Court was opened this morning at ten o'clock, the Judge being escorted from his lodgings by a large number of javelin-men and other officials. The following gentlemen were sworn on the GRAND JURY. Hon. H. W. Fitzmaurlce, Foreman. Sir R. B. W. Bulkeley. Bart., M.P. O. J. A. F. Meyrick, Esq. J. L. Hampton Lewis, Ksq Major-General R. G. Hughes. H. Pritchard, Esq., Treseawen. W, Williams, Esq., Plas Gwyn. John Williams, Esq, Treffos. Robert Davies, Esq., Bodlondeb. Richard Davies, Esq., Benarth. H. Owen Williams, Esq., Trecastell. W. Barton Panton. Esq., Garreg Lwyd. W. Massey, Esq., Cornelyn. R. J. Hughes, Esq.. Plas yn Llangoed. J. H. Hampton, Esq. Robert Brisco Owen, Esq., Haulfre. W. Parry Lewis, Esq., Cichle. LI. Jones, Esq.. Beaumaris. Edw. Octavius Pearse, Esq. W. Walthew. Esq., Holyhead. Michael Jones, Geirn. His LORDSHIP then proceeded to ad Iress the Grand Jury, which he did to the forowin; eftect. This was the first time, he observed, that h; had visited the coun- ty of Anglesey, and he did not, therefore, know whether the calendar contained a more numerous list of prisoners than was usual. He was sorry, however, to find several, very serious charges upon the list, and which would re- quire their most careful consideration. Indeed, he was sorry to say that the calendars in all the counties in North Wales which he had been to were very heavy, and they contained a series of very serious crimes. In this respect, he was very glad to have the assistance of the Grand Juries, and their duties were of the most im- portant character, as they relieved him of a great deal of heavy responsibility. It gave'him much pain to find that the use of the knife had been very frequent in other places as well as in Anglesey; and what was very strange, it was used by persons who very often possessed the most kindly dispositions, and were not at all cruelly disposed, but who were carried away by their passion and hot blood. He then alluded to the case of Thomas Walsh, who had been committed on a charge of murder on the Coroner's warrant, for stabbing a man to death at Holyhead. It appeared from the depositions that the parties, who were friends, had quarrelled, and that a fight took place between them, and that in the struggle the prisoner stabbed the deceased seven times, from the effects of which he died. He was glad to have their as- sistance in the matter and after hearing the evidence which would be given before them, it would be for them to say whether the crime was one of murder, or whether it only amounted to manslaughter. For himself, he was not going to dictate to them; but he might say all homi- cides were prima facie cases of murder. If it was not premeditated, but was committed in hot blood, then it was not murder, but manslaughter but then it rested with the prisoner to prove that it was not premeditated, and was not done in cold blood. The law in respect of taking away a man's life was superlatively jealous; and if a man killed another man, the law looked upon it as murder, and it required that the perpetrator should prove that it was not murder. If there was a question of doubt in the case, it was for him to remove the doubt. This was the general law on the subject, and, in his opi- nion, it was quite unnecessary for him to trouble them with details, and he had no doubt but what they would do their duty most conscientiously and impartially. Per- haps he might as well say a few words more on the sub- ject as it regards the distinction between murder and manslaughter. If a man kills another man whilst in hot blood, arising from great provocation, in that case it is not murder, but manslaughter; but they should bear in mind that the provocation must not be slight-it must be very serious provocation. It would be for them to judge of the amount of provocation which the prisoner received at the hands of the deceased; but to constitute manslaughter, the provocation must be serious. The learned Judge then referred to the charge of manslaugh- ter which had been preferred against Robert Jones and Robert Hughes, for slaying Rowland Prydderch, at a place in Anglesey, which his Lordship said he should pass over, as he could not pronounce it (Caergeiliog). In reference to this charge, he would inform them that the statement made by a person in the position of the de- ceased when he seems to have made it, cannot be taken as evidence against the accusod. It is only when a per- son is in such a state that he cannot hope to live, and when he is nearly closing his eyes, and the world to him is as nothing, that such statements can be received as evidence. From the depositions, there appears to have been a scuffle, Put no deadly weapon was employed, and the man's death may have resulted from an accidental fall, or from a broken leg. He died in consequence of injuries inflicted either by Jones or Hughes, or both, or it might have been the result of accident, and it would be for them, the Grand Jury, to pronounce whieh, in their opinion. His Lordship next briefly alluded to the charge against Patrick Holden, who was charged with stabbing William Reilly, steward of the steam-vessel Hibernia, with an intention to murder him. If a man uses the knife, and stabs a man, who, however, does not die, the man who does so is morally guilty, though he may not be legally so. In this instance no serious re- sults ensued, although it was a great chance that death did not follow, as the man was stabbed in a very danger- ous part, so that death might have been caused. He said it was a chance but there was no chance in this world what is usually called so arises from our igno- rance of cause and effect, for everything is determined by an over-ruling Providence. This, however, was not a capital offence, and it would be for the Grand Jury to say whether it was maliciously wounding, to do grievous bodily injury, or unlawfully wounding. The learned Judge then concluded by apologising for the length of time which he had detained them. CIVIL CASE. I Roberts v. Jones.-This was an action to recover X 150 on a promisory note, and the interest claimed, X9. The parties live at Ruthin. Mr. Horatio Lloyd appeared for the plaintiff, Mary Roberts, aud stated that the defendant did not appear. He then called Mr. Llewelyn Adams, solicitor, Ruthin, who handed in a document, signed on the 21st of March, 1865, in which he acknowledged the debt. Mr. Adams also swore to having seen the defendant sign the docu- ment in question. After some remarks relative to the interest claimed, his Lordship directed the Jury to return a verdict for zCI57-two pounds less than sued for. FELONY. I George Baldwin, 28, a soldier in the 62nd Rifles, was charged with stealing a silver watch and guard, the pro- perty of Mr. Henry Cave, at Holyhead, on the 1st of March last. The prisoner, in a firm voice, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Morgan Lloyd stated the case for the prosecution, and called ijenry Cave, who said—I am a fireman on board the steamer Hibernia, I was on board the steamer, bound from Dublin to Holyhead, on the 28th of February last. The prisoner was a passenger on board, with a sick com- rade with him. I allowed them to go into my berth. I left the watch in the berth. The prisoner was in the room alongside the berth. I was not there when the sick man left. The watch and guard now produced are both mine. They were made by Mr. Joseph Bader, Holyhead. The prisoner afterwards said he was sorry for it, and that if he had known it was mine he would not have taken it, and that it was a bad job for him. By the JLidge-Tlie sick soldier paid me Is. 6d. for the use of the berth. I left the sick soldier and the pri- soner in the berth from between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon until 7 o'clock the next morning. I was in and out of the room several times. I saw the watch under the bed about twelve o'clock at noon, after we had left Dublin. John Hughes—I am a trimmer on board the Hiber- nia, and was on the voyage from Dublin to Holyhead on the 28th of February. I remember the prisoner and a sick soldier on board in their berth. In the morning I saw the prisoner in Cave's berth his back was toward, me, and I asked him what he was looking for ? He said he was looking for his stick He was standing by the side of the bed when I went down to him. Joseph Webb-I am a watchmaker, living at Shrews- bury. I saw the prisoner in my shop on the 1st of March, about 8 o'clock at night. He offered me a watch and guard for sale, and I gave him a sovereign for them. He said it was his own watch, and he wanted money. He told me he had bought it at Holyhead. He came again next morning with a man named Newns, and at the prisoner's request I sold it Newns for 22s. By his Lordship-The watch is worth bout C3, per- haps. Newns, who is an innkeeper in Shrewsbury, spoke to his having bought the watch, as stated by Mr. W eb". I Inspector John Davies, of Shrewsbury, said he found the watch produced at Mr. Newns's, on the 2nd of March last. Mr. Edward Owen, police Inspector, Holyhead said he apprehended the prisoner in Dublin on the 7th of March, and charged him with stealing a watch in the Hibernia. On the voyage back, he said he had bought it of a person in Dublin. He said he wished he had never seen the watch. His statement before the Magistrates was then read over, in which he stated that the watch was given to him by a gentleman when he was going over from Dub- lin to Liverpool. His LORDSHIP having read over the evidence, the Jury at once brought in a verdict of guilty. Sentenced to 9 calendar months, with hard labour. FELONY. George Day, fisherman, and Willktm Jackson, labourer, both pleaded guilty to having, on the 2nd of January last, stolen one flannel vest, the property of Wm. Wil- liams, at Amlwch and one pair of drawers, the proper- ty of John Williams, at Amlwch. Sentenced to six weeks each. ANOTHER FELONY AT AMLWCH. Margaret Davies, servant, pleaded guilty to stealing two ftpeons, one pair of drowers, one shift, and two towels, the property of Ellin Hughes, and also one pair of drawers, the property of William Jones, at Amlwch, on the 2nd and 8th days of February last. Sentenced to two months' imprisonment. STEALING SHEEP AT NEWBOROUGH. Hugh Williams, 65, farmer, was charged with stealing one ewe, the property of William Thomas; also one ewe, the property of Griffith Griffiths; and also one ewe, the property of Wm. Owen, at Newborough, on the 27th day of February last. Mr. Wynne Foulkes appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. M. Lloyd for the defence. Mr. Foulkes stated the particulars of the charge, and then called the following witnesses. Wm. Owen. He said—I work for Griffith Griffiths, who lives at Pen-dre, in the parish of Newborough. Pen-dre adjoins the farm of Wm. Thomas. On the 27th of February, I was working on Mr. Griffiths's farm, in a field where the sheep were kept. Was there up to twelve o'clock at noon. Had a sheep of my own in the field, and so h". 1 Mr. Griffiths. My sheep had a mark on the ear—a hole in the left one, and two small cuts in the right. Can't say exactly whether the hole was round or square. Mr. Griffiths's mark was a piece cut out of the right ear, and a piece cut off the tip of the left. I also saw a sheep belonging to Mr. Wm. Thomas. I knew the sheep, because I knew his mark some time previously. The sheep were not in the field the next morning. On the 27th there were 14 sheep in the field altogether; but the next day, they were all gone. I went to look for them after dinner. Found them in Mr. Thomas's field, all but three—mine, Mr. Griffiths's, and Mr. Thomas's but I did not care much for his. Saw Rd. Jones and Mr. Thomas in the afternoon, in the same field I was working the day before. They were going along the road towards Newborough, and they called me to them. I went with them. They were driving three sheep before them. I helped to drive them to Mr. Thomas's farm. I saw my sheep and Mr. Griffiths's. We went to the farm, and the prisoned pre- sently came there. Rd. Jones, the butcher, asked the prisoner whether those were not the sheep he had bought of him, and then the prisoner, Hugh Williams, gave the money, £3 10s., back to the butcher. I had not sold any of the sheep that day. Cross-examined by Mr Morgan Lloyd-Some of the hedges are pretty low in that part of the county, but they will hold sheep. There are no commons there now -no pieces of waste land; it is all held by somebody. The land is open in some places. It was between four and five in the evening when Rd. Jones called me to him. Mary Hughes—I live at Newborough. Remember going along the road from Newborough on the 27th of February. I know Mr. Griffiths's field where the sheep were. Saw a man there. It was about 7 o'clock. I spoke to the man. He said, "I am here. I have come across a sheep which is poorly." It was the prisoner's voice. I have known him ever since I have known anybody. He was on his kneei by some sheep. I saw him getting up, and he got over the wall into the road, and then I saw who it was. It was Hugh Williams, the prisoner. He pushed the sheep into the road, and then came over the wall. Cross-examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd-At first I thought the man was Griffith Griffiths, when he an- swered I knew it was Hugh Williams. Wm. Thomas—I am a farmer living at Newborough. My farm adjoins Mr. Griffiths's. I went towards New- borough on the 27th of February, and met Mr Richard Jones, butcher, Carnarvon. He had three sheep, and he was driving them in the direction of Carnarvon. I knew one before I came to it. I examined it care- fully, and it had my mark upon it. (The witness here described the marks in detail.) The sheep was mine. I claimed it, and helped to drive the sheep to my farm. Shortly after I got home, Richard Jones brought the prisoner to our house; and he asked the prisoner whe- ther those were not the three sheep which he (prisoner) had sold to him, and he replied that they were. He said also that it was a mistake, and he then delivered the money back to the butcher. I had seen my sheep the day before, in Mr. Griffiths's field, about 5 o'clock in the evening. Cross-examined by Mr. M. Lloyd—Mr. Griffith's sheep and mine mix sometimes. Rd. Jones went for Hugh Williams, and they both came back to me. Rd. Jones—I am a butcher and farmer at Carnarvon. I received a message on Saturday, the 27th of Febru- ary. In consequence of that I went to the prisoner to buy some sheep. The sheep were in P. field in Newbo- rough. I found two ponies and three sheep. I bought the sheep for S3 10s. and paid him in gold. He helped me to drive them, and on the road I met Mr. Thomas, and Wm. Owen was called from the field. We three then went to the gaoa of Mr. Thomas's field, and then I went back to Hugh Williams. I found him at the White Lion Inn, in Newborough, sitting by the fire. I told him I wanted him, as the sheep were going from me. We then went to Mr. Thomas's farm, and I asked him why he sold me the sheep, when one belonged to Mr. Wm. Thomas 1 He said it was a mistake, and he then gave me the money bMk. I have bought sheep of the pri- soner before,—the last time being about a fortnight back. Cross-examined by Mr. M. Lloyd—He asked too mueh for the sheep at first, but we agreed in the afternoon. He helped to drive the sheep a short distance. When I saw him in the public-house, he came with me in a minute. The road was an occupation road, and runs into the high road. Griffith Griffith-I am a farmer, residing at New- borough. On the 27th ult., I had some sheep and we- thers in a field. There were 10 of my own, some be- longing to my servant, and one which was the property of Mr. Thornzts. I saw them all safe on the noon of that day The next morning I left home to go to the Me- nai Bridge. I returned home at dusk on the Tuesday evenin". After I returned home, the prisoner came to my house- Mr. Thomas, and one or two others were present. The prisoner motioned me out of the room, and we went into a stable, when he told me of the circumstances which had taken place. He said some mistake had occurred, and that he had taken the sheep. He said he had bought them of a farmer who had a large family. He begged of me to go to Mr. Thomas to prevent any row. I asked did any one know about them except Mr. Thomas and Mr. Owens ? He said he did not know exactly then. I then said that if the story had gone about the neigh- bourhood, I could not stop it. I then asked him from whom he had bought them; but he said he would not tell me then. He said he had sent to the butcher on the Saturday, to come to buy some sheep. I asked, how could he send for a butcher to buy sheep, when he had none ? He replied, that he had intended to buy some. He told me that he had no sheep unless he bought some. P.C. James Williams-From information received, I apprehended the prisoner on the 6th of March. I found him in a small room in a house at Newborough. I charged him with stealing sheep, and he said (in Welsh) it was a very great thing." I told him that I had a warrant to apprehened him, and I took him into cus- tody. This was the case for the prosecution- Mr. Morgan Lloyd then addressed the Court for the defence. He admitted that his client did sell the sheep in question, and that they may have been the property of the parties who claimed them. What he maintained was, that he did not steal them, but that it was a mistake. His client, who lived in Newborough, put them into his field, so that any of his neighbours could have seen them. He did not deny having sold them, he paid back the money, and altogether acted in a manner which was not the conduct of a guilty man. The fences in that part of the country are not good, and the sheep of different farmers mix together. As to the girl who saw him in Mr. Griffith's field, why, if he had not spoken she could not have known who he was. The evidence only pointed to a mistake, and nothing more. After an eloquent appeal to the jury not to con- vict the prisoner on such a doubtful case, he called the following witnesses as to character. Mr. Owen Williams, Gwalchmai, who said that the prisoner had always borne a good character for ho- nesty. Mr. Rd. Hughes, farmer, said he had known him for 25 years. He always bore a good character, and he had never known any charge against him before. Mr. Thomas Owen, Llangenwen, said he had known him for 30 years, and he had always borpe a first rate character. His LORDSHIP then summed up at considerable length. He dwelt strongly on the evidence of the girl Mary Hughes, she having found the prisoner in the field after dark and on his sending to a butcher on a Saturday to come and purchase sheep, when it was proved that he had none to sell. On the Monday, the three sheep were in Mr. Griffith's field, but by some means or other on Tuesday they were in the prisoners' field, but how they got there it was not shewn in evidence. He then read over the chief points in the other witnesess s evidence, and concluded by saying the matter was left entirely ia the hands of the jury. Verdict-Gllilty. Sentence was deferred, and yesterday he was brought up and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. I HOUSE BREAKING AT BEAUMARIS. Edwin Pitt, 19, brickmaker, and James Kelly, 20, labourer, were charged with breaking into, and entering the shop of Mary Pritchard, at Beaumaris, and stealing therefrom 14 boxes of night-light burners, the property of the said Mary Pritchard, on the 25th of January last. laS Mr. Ignatius Williams appeared for the prosecution, and stated the charge. He first called W. Williams, who said-I am police sergeant in Beauraans. I saw the prisoners in Beaumaris on the 25th of January last. I asked them where they came from, and Kelly said he belonged to Bangor. They told me they wanted lodg. ings, and I said they could get them either at the Menai Bridge or at Bangor. I followed them out of town and saw them sitting down. They said they were tired. I and the other policeman after this, watched them, having concealed ourselves. About 7 o'clock in the evening I saw them going up the steps of the prosecutrix's shop. Almost immediately afterwards I saw them runing away, when I gave chase, and on catching Pitt I found the boxes of light now produced. Kelly had also four night-lights in his possession, when I examined him in the lock up. In cross examination by Pitt, Williams said he could not see the shop door from the spot where he had con- cealed himself. P. C. Robfc. flughes, corroborated the evidence of Serjeant Williams.. Mr. John Pritchard said he manages the shop of his sistei Mary Pritchard. On the 25th of January he missed the stated sundry night-lights similar to those produced in Court. This witness was sharply cross-examined by the prisoner Pitt, the questions of whom caused a good deal of merri- ment. P. C. Robert Hughes was re-called and underwent a searching cross examination from Pitt, who displayed a talent which many a barrister might be proud of. Pitt said he should plead guilty to stealing, but if the question of housebreaking was to be put to the jury, he should plead, of course, not guilty. His LORDSHIP in summing up said, the entering into the shop was proved; but the prosecution, he remarked, had not proved that he broke into the shop, that is, it had not been proved that they had not legally entered into the shop like any other customers. Verdict of guilty. Pitt admitted having been convicted of felony before; Kelly denied having been so but it was proved that he was convicted at Montgomery in March, 1864, and sentenced to six calendar months, under the name of Lynch. Sentenced to nine calendar months each. STABBING AT HOLYHEAD. Pat tick ITo'den, shopkeeper, was charged with feloni- ously stabbing one Wm Reilly, with intent by so doing, then and there feloniously and wilfully, and of his ma- lice aforethought, to kill and murder the said Wm. Reilly, steward of the Hibernia, at Holyhead, on the 23rd of Feb. last. Mr. Mclntyre appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Morgan Lloyd for the prisoner. Mr. Mclntyre then proceeded to state the details of the charge, which are contained in the following evi- dence. Mr. W. Reilly sairl-I live at Dublin, and am steward of the Hibernia. On the 25th of February I was at Holyhead and I saw the prisoner, who said he had a second class ticket, whereas he had but a third class one. He then put 2s. 6d. down and said that that would make it a second class ticket. 1 told him I could not take it; when ho replied he would pay his full fare. He lay on the sofa for about Rn hour. He then came up and asked could he have his supper. I replied, yes, but there are no potatoes. He then leaped up and began swearing in a fearful manner. I told him he must not swear in that way, or he must leave the cabin. I took hold of him, and after I felt pain, and exclaimed, Oh! he has got a knife. He had stabbed me in the groin. I was struggling with him for abouT ? minutes and no more. Cross-examined by Mr. M. Lloyd-I went to a doc- tor when I returned to Holyhead on the I st of March, The doctor was surgeon Walthew. The prisoner had a third class ticket. In the boat we have only 1st and 2nd classes. The 3rd class is twice a day. He refused to have supper as he could not have potatoes. The ticket collector assisted me to turn him out of the sa- loon. I found a tobacco box the next morning on the sofa. I don't think the-prisoner could have pulled out his knife when we were scuffling. I did not remark him cutting tobacco whilst he lay on the sofa. I saw no knife, nor tobacco, neither. John Frodsham 1 am ticket collector in the Hibernia, and I heard the last witness call out at the time named, and I went to his assistance. I heard him say he was stabbed. I g"t hold of the prisoner and released the steward. I saw the blade of a knife in his hand. It wa3 taken from him by the seaman Pr,chard. Cross-examined—The steward and I were trying to turn him out when the occurrence took place. James Prichard -1 am a seaman on board the Hi- bernia. When I went into the saloon I saw the last witness holding the prisoner down on the sofa. The two blades of the knife were open, and I shut it, and put it into my pocket. I afterwards gave it up to the mate. Mr. Luke Martin—I am captain of the steamer Hibernia. I saw the struggle between the steward and the prisoner. I heard the steward tell him that he must be quiet, or they would have to turn him out. I heard the steward say, H e has got a knife—he has stabbed me." Mr. Wm. Walthew—I am a surgeon practising at Holyhead, I saw the prosecutor first on the 1st of March. There was a cut on the little finger of the right hand. Also a slight wound on left side of the groin. The wound was slight in itself, but the place was a dangerous one. The knife produced may have caused both the cut in the trowsers produced and the wound in the groin. (Prichard shewed how the knife was when he found it-open at both ends.) Mr. Walthew continued—Either end of the knifa could have made the wound. Cross-examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd—The wound was little more than a scratch. The cut on the finger, though not serious, was a clean cut. Re-examined by Mr Mclntyre—The blow which caused the knife to go through the trowsers must have been given with some force. Inspector E. Owen, gave soino information about the knife. He was very drunk on the night in question, and on the Sunday following he was delirious. Mr. Morgan Llovd then rose and addressed the court for the defence. The case against the prisoner had, he said, been greatly exaggerated, and in his opinion his client had only acted as most other men would have done under the circumstances. It appears that he had taken a third class ticket from Liverpool or Birkenhead to Dublin, and when he arrived at Holyhead he went into the steamer which was then going on to Dublin. There were, it appears, only two classes of passengers on board, and he might naturally think, therefore, that his third-class ticket was equal to a secotid-clus one, and that was why he said he had a second-class ticket. Mr. Mclntyre, yes, only two classes in the cabin, the third-class was upon the deck. Mr. M. Lloyd-I really wish my learned friend would not interrupt me, and would let me state what I have to say. His LORDSHIP-Well, then, you set him the exam- pie. Mr. Lloyd-I will do so and by not following his ex- ample. (Laughter). Mr. Lloyd then continued his re- marks. He thought too much had been attempted to be made about these decks and passages, for they really had nothing to do with the question at issue. When his client was told that a second-class ticket was requir- ed, and that he would not be admitted into the saloon without one, what did he flo ? Why, he instantly put down upon his ticket and said, there, that will make it into a second-class ticket. After he had gone into the saloon he lay down upon the sofa; and as he had travelled from Birkenhead he was doubtless hungry, and he asked for supper. He was told that he could not have potatoes, and then according to the evidence of Mr. Reilly he used somewhat strong language; but the jury would please to remember that the prosecu- tor could but be expected to make out the best case he could in his own favour. Be this, however, as it may, swearing and using bad language did not warrant them in forcibly turning him out of the cabin. This, however, the prosecutor proceeded at once to do according to his own statement, on the pretence that he was going some- where towards the captain's cabin, which as the passage leads to the deck as well, was no reason at all for his doing so. A struggle then took place, and the prosecu- tor said he was stabbed by the prisoner. The jury had heard the evidence of the medical gentleman, who, of course, gave perfectly impartial evidence, and he told them that the extent of the wound was merely a email wound on the finger and a slight scratch on the groin. Did this look as if his client had seriously intended to murder the prosecutor, and yet this was what he was charged with. But it was said—yes, but if the wound was but a slight one it was in a very dangerous place. Well, a large wound inflicted on any part of the body was dangerous," but a scratch was not dangerous any