1842—At the Lent Assizes was tried The Marquis of Anglesea v. Lord Hatherton, a cause more interesting from the rank of the parties interested, and the right at stake, than from any attractiveness in the subject or the evidence. It was an action to stop the noble defendant from working coal mines on certain copyhold property belonging to the latter at Cannock, in Staffordshire; and turned upon the question whether Lord Anglesea, as lord of the manor of Cannock, had right to the minerals. Sir Thomas Wilde, Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Alexander, and the Honourable Mr. Talbot, were retained for the defendant; and the Solicitor-General (Sir William Follett), Mr. Richards, Q.C., Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Whitmore, for the plaintiff. A great number of witnesses were called on either side, to prove rights and customs, and to perplex the jury; and ultimately, after a trial of two days, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, with nominal damages. The verdict created much surprise.
1842—July 20—A Court of Inquiry holden by Mr. Under Sheriff Gillam and a special jury, to assess damages in the case Powell v. Perrins. This was an action to recover damages for the seduction of plaintiff’s daughter, plaintiff being a land surveyor at Hagley, and defendant a chain maker, living near Stourbridge. £500 damages given for the plaintiff.
1842—At the Midsummer Assizes a horrible case of depravity was disclosed in the trial of Richard Taylor, a blacksmith of Stourbridge, charged with shooting at his wife, Hannah Taylor, with intent to murder her. Though she had been the subject of a course of the most sickening brutality, she refused to give evidence against him, and the witnesses, therefore, were the neighbours and the prisoner’s own grown-up daughter, who stood in the witness box with a child in her arms, which was the offspring of an incestuous intercourse with her own father! The prisoner, on the particular occasion for which he was tried, had shot at his wife, and beaten her till she was well nigh killed. He then turned all his children out of doors stark naked. He was only found guilty of an assault, because nothing more could be proved without the wife’s evidence, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment only.
1843—At the Lent Assizes, Edwin Archer, a young labourer from Rouse Lench, was tried for the wilful murder of George Green, in the previous December. He pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter, and was sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation. The prisoner and deceased had been quarrelling, and set about to wrestle; in the course of the struggle, Archer drew a knife and stabbed Green in four distinct places—one of the wounds penetrating the heart—and death immediately ensued. As soon as the fatal deed was done, Archer was aghast with horror, and wept like a child over the body of his passion’s victim.
Samuel Bridgwater was tried at these Assizes, at the instance of some very indefatigable Radicals, for bribery at the election of 1841. The bill had repeatedly been thrown out by the grand juries, as was supposed, on political grounds, until at last a sufficient number of the right party were found to return it as “a true bill.” The case, however, now broke down at its very commencement, because a tailor had been sent to the Crown Office for copies of the return to the writ for the Worcester election, and he had not had them compared with the originals.
1843—June 1—The Rev. William Smith, vicar of Overbury, obtained a rule nisi for a criminal information against the Worcestershire Chronicle. The parish had long been in a state of most unseemly dissension, and the Chronicle, in giving a long and very detailed statement of meetings and matters there, was said to have libelled Mr. Smith in attributing conduct to him which he disclaimed, and generally in reflecting on his character and conduct. The rule was, however, afterwards discharged by arrangement, and no further proceedings were taken.
1843—At the Midsummer Sessions, Sir Thomas Phillips, Bart., and two of his labourers, were tried at these Sessions, for assaulting George Cooper, a shoemaker of Broadway. Cooper was collector of taxes, and went to Middle Hill to get a balance of taxes from the honourable baronet. He had had repeated disputes with Sir Thomas Phillips, and this was also a disputed affair, so Sir Thomas ordered him off the premises; and when he talked of levying a distress, Sir Thomas pushed him out of the hall, and struck him with a garden paddle once or twice. The two labourers were discharged, and Sir Thomas Phillips fined £10.
1843—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Justice Maule, was tried Lavender and Another v. Bucklee, being an action to recover £3,500, which had been secured on a bond given by Messrs. Thomas and William Bucklee to William Shaw, Esq., of Britannia House, Worcester. It was said that Mr. Shaw, shortly before his death, had cancelled the bond by cutting it off. It was said by the executors that Mr. Shaw was not in a state of mind to cancel the bond; and that his housekeeper, who was a relation of the Bucklees, appeared to have great influence with Mr. Shaw. A great deal of evidence was given as to the transaction itself, at which interested parties were present and took much part, and as to Mr. Shaw’s state of health at the time. The jury, after an hour’s deliberation, found a verdict for the defendant.
A case which excited great interest in the city of Worcester, was the trial of Charles Samuel Atkins, a young man respectably connected, who was in the employ of Messrs. Griffiths and Clarke, linen drapers, as a shopman. He was charged with embezzling £4, the property of his employers, on the 27th of September, 1842. Atkins had been sent to Mrs. Jeremy with a shawl and some satinette, and on his return said Mrs. Jeremy had kept the shawl and not paid for it, and had retained the satinette for approval. Mrs. Jeremy declared that she paid the person who brought the shawl four sovereigns on the spot. It was shown that in the very next week Mrs. Jeremy had had some satinette sent her from Hill and Turley’s, by a young man remarkably like the prisoner, and that came to very nearly the same sum as the shawl; and it was suggested that Mrs. Jeremy might have confounded the two transactions. The jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” and the court immediately echoed with deafening cheers, while Atkins fainted away. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd conducted the prosecution, while Mr. Bodkin, of the Old Bailey, was specially retained for the defence. The linen drapers’ assistants of the city afterwards presented Mr. Atkins with a silver snuff box.
Mary Francis, 24, single woman, was charged with attempting to poison Mary Jeffs, an elderly woman, living at Alderminster. The prisoner brought the old woman a cake, pretending that some one had given it her to make a present of it to the prosecutrix, but the strangeness of her manner in delivering it, and her continually saying that she was only to eat of it herself, excited the old woman’s suspicions. The cake was analysed, and was found to contain a large quantity of arsenic. The prisoner was courted by the old woman’s son; but not the slightest motive could be assigned for her wish to deprive the mother of life. She was found guilty, and sentenced to fifteen years’ transportation.