Search billions of records on

The Windsor and Eton Express.
Bucks Chronicle and Reading Journal

EMail Me - Titles and Dates - Surname Home Page

Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express

16th July 1842


The annual pulling sweepstakes between the Eton collegians was contested for on the 8th inst. Thirty-one boats, and unusual number, started. The boat that first made away from the cluster was Peel and Bailey, closely followed by Sutton and Burton, and for a considerable distance these two boats apparently had the race in hand : at Upper Hope, however, Heygate and Stapylton, who had been bumped at the start, made strong play, and quickly overhauled Sutton and Burton, and at Athens, between Upper Hope and the Rushes, challenged and passed the leading boat, taking the turn for the back pull so much in advance as to reduce the thing to a certainty. Peel and Bailey were also passed by Sutton and Burton, but the latter were pressed hard to the finish. An excellent race occurred for the fourth place, which was got by Murdock and Lord Belgrave, defeating Courtnay and Foster by half a boat. The winning boat was steered by Lord Cecil.


Burnham and Iver - The match played on Wednesday, on Burnham Gore, terminated in favour of Burnham by 150 runs, the score being Burnham 95 and 141, total 236; Iver, 36 and 50, total 86. The Iver were defeated by the bowling of Holloway, Brigenshaw, and B.Cutler, while their own bowling was quite ineffective against their opponents. On the Burnham side Mr.B.Cutler scored 50, Mr.T.Brigenshaw 33, Mr.G.Crocker 27, and Mr.J.Holloway 44, the four getting 154 runs out of the total number scored by the party.
On Wednesday evening last a single wicket match was played in the Brocas between the four Benedicts, Messrs.J.Stanfield, Aske, sen., Evamy, and Turner, and four bachelors, Messrs.Aske, jun., Stanfield, Sinclair, and Watson, which terminated in the defeat of those in a state of "single blessedness" by 5 runs, the score being 13 to 8.

MARYLEBONE AND ETON COLLEGIANS - In this match played on Thursday in the College grounds, Eton, the score stood, Marylebone, 96 and 97, total 193; Eton 95 and 20, total 115, with 9 wickets good. The Marylebone had the assistance of the celebrated bowler Good, but the Collegians were nevertheless match for them, the score exhibiting a difference of one only in the first innings, and at the conclusion of the day may be said to be quite in their favour, having lost one wicket only for 20 runs, all got from the bat. The bowlers for Marylebone were Good and Mr. Walker, and for Eton, Fellowes, Marcon, Yonge, and Ainslie. The greatest number of runs on the Marylebone side were got by Mr. Keate and Good, and on the the part of Eton, by Mr. Fellowes.
A match will be played on Monday at Eton, Wick Common, betweent the clubs of Eton Wick and Chalvey, when some good country play is expected.
A match will be played on Tuesday next at Taplow, between 11 players of that place and 11 of Little Marlow.

WOKINGHAM ALBION AND WINDSOR AND ETON ROYAL ALBERT CLUBS. These clubs (young-uns under 20 years of age), will meet again on Wednesday next at Wokingham. From the easy victory gained by the Windsor and Eton in the first match, they have consented, for the purpose of making a more even match, to forego the assistance of one of their best bowlers.

Windsor Police - Monday
[Before J.Clode, Esq. (mayor), and W.Legh, Esq.]

Emma Bennett a prostitute, apparently not more than 18 years of age, was charged with being disorderly in Barrack-lane.

The prisoner's conduct exhibited a lamentable instance of profligacy , and of a desire to lead an abandoned and wretched life, even though she has friends anxious to provide for her. It appeared that she had been two or three times in custody before for disorderly conduct, and once she had been regularly removed to the Union-house at Old Windsor, where she did not stay long before she left it to return to her old habits; at another time her sister, who lives at Langley, took charge of her, and after a while procured her a comfortable situation, her sister furnishing her with clothes to appear decent in; however she remained in her situation but three days, when she ran away to join the company of the soldiers again as she had done before.

Mr.Gillman said the sister was now in attendance, and would willingly take her back if she would promise to go.

The mayor ordered the sister to be called in. She was a very decent looking woman, and seemed in great affliction. She was questioned , and she repeated the above statement.

The mayor said it was indeed a most lamentable case. He asked the prisoner if she would consent, if he discharged her, to go home and live with her sister.

The prisoner, who appeared of a sullen disposition, made no reply until the question was repeatedly put, when she very unwillingly made the required promise and was discharged. It was evident to all in the court, however, that there was little probability of the promise being kept.

Mary Smith was next charged with being disorderly. She was reprimanded and discharged. She had been in custody before on a charge of robbery, but on the present occasion Mr.Gillman stated a fact in her favour, which was this. She was one night in a public house in the company of a countryman, who had more money than wit, and of whom she got two sovereigns. There were some soldiers with the countryman, and she suspected from their manner and actions that they intended to rob him, on which she went to the police, stated the circumstances, and gave up the two sovereigns. Such an act of honesty among that class of persons is extremely rare.

Frederick Alder Priestly, a young man apprentice to Mr.Bates, the builder, was charged by his master with absenting himself from his employment, and neglecting his work.

It appeared from Mr.Bate's statement , that the prisoner had been apprenticed to him for six years, a little better than half of which term had elapsed. He had however chosen to leave his work for days together, and associating with bad companions, returning just when he pleased, and, when remonstrated with, behaving in an impudent and saucy tone to his master.This had occurred no less than forty times, and finding remonstrance of no farther use, Mr.Bate had determined to employ him no longer, but to let the law take its course, either by cancelling the indentures, or by otherwise punishing the prisoner. He (the prisoner) absented himself for several days last week, and on that morning (Monday) he returned and demanded in the insolent tone to be set to work, when he was given into the charge of the police.
The prisoner, when called on by the magistrates for an explanation of his conduct, seemed to treat the matter with great levity. He said he had been unwell and could not go to work, but he could not say why he had not informed his master, and he was not so ill as to be obliged to have a doctor.

The magistrates lectured the prisoner on the impropriety of his conduct, which subjected him to be sent for trial at the Quarter Sessions, and to be put to hard labour at the treadmill, besides having his indentures cancelled.

Ultimately Mr.Bate, at the request of the magistrates, consented to see Mr.Jenning's , of Slough, who had apprenticed the prisoner (who had no parents), to speak to him and see what was best to be done. The prisoner was then discharged for the present.

Wm.Newton, tailor, of Peascod-street, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in the New-road. He now appeared to regret his indiscretion, and after an admonition from the bench, was discharged.

Catherine Cochrane, a clean and well dressed girl, only 16 years old, was charged with being found wandering about George-street on Saturday night, having no home to go to.

Mr.Gillman said he understood the prisoner came to Windsor after one of the band of the 15th regiment.

The Mayor said it was most deplorable to see such a number of young creatures lead so abandoned a life.

To some questions put to the prisoner, who was crying bitterly, she said she came from Woolwich on Tuesday, where her parents lived, and that they did not know where she was. She was without lodging and money. She now wished to return home.

The magistrate ordered that a policeman should take her to the Union-house at Old Windsor, in order to her being passed home to Woolwich by the parish.

She was accordingly sent to the union-house, but soon after the policeman had left her there she refused to remain, and quitted the house.

Jane Pearson, a filthy looking prostitute, not more than about 16 years of age, was charged with cutting open the head of a boy of ten years of age, named William Joseph Parke, son of a private in the life guards.
The boy appeared with his head bandaged, he had a severe and extensive cut on the back of his head and several cuts on his forehead and about his eyes. It was stated by his father that he had been attended by two doctors.

It appeared from the statement of the boy, that on Sunday evening he, with several other boys about his own age, all sons of soldiers of the life guards, were in a field near the Lammas, when they saw the prisoner near a pond half naked. [It is believed she went there to wash herself]. The boys determined to have, as Parke said, "a game" with her, and they kept teazing her for some time, and took up her bonnet and watered in it. She then got up and ran after them; Parke in running fell into a ditch, when the prisoner came up and knocked him about the head with a stone or brick which she had in her hand.
She also had a white handle dessert knife in her hand, and said she would stab the first that came near. Parke was taken away to a doctor, and the prisoner was shortly afterwards apprehended by Mole, a policeman.

The magistrates reprimanded the boys for their misconduct towards the prisoner, who was remanded to Thursday.

William Hazlehurst, of the Britannia beershop, was charged with threatening to do some bodily harm to George Parker, a tailor, in Keppel-street.
Mr.Voules appeared for the defendant.

The case, it may be remembered , arose out of the complaints made by Mr.Parker of the very disorderly character of Hazlehurst's house, which engendered in that person a bad feeling towards him.
Parker stated that on Thursday and Friday week, for several hours in the afternoon and evening, Hazlehurst came to his door (the next house to the defendant's) and grossly abused him, calling him a "b-y thief", "informer", &c., threatening him, and calling him to come out and he would "do" for him. He created an assemblage of persons there, and had offered money to some of the neighbours to annoy him. On the Thursday evening Hazlehurst went up stairs in one of his bed rooms adjoining Parker's room, the partition between the two houses being very slight, and knocked violently for some time, apparently with his foot or fist, against the partition, the noise of which threw his, Parker's , child into convulsions. Parker knocked in return to let Hazlehurst know he heard him, and then the latter ceased. In consequence of these and similar threats and annoyances Parker swore he was in fear of bodily injury, unless he were protected.

He was cross examined at some length, but nothing material came out.

Horton and Brown, policemen, were next called, but they did not hear the violent threats attributed to the defendant. They were only a short time there on either of the evenings named. Horton however heard Hazlehurst call out to Parker that he deserved to have his house pulled about his ears.

Mr.Voules submitted that there was no evidence in which to call on the defendant to find sureties to keep the peace. Mere abuse was not cognizable by the magistrates, and as to the threats, only one was sworn to by Parker, and that was, if he, Parker, would come out, he, the defendant, "would do for him", but that was optional to Parker, who very properly did not choose to come out to be so done. Besides, Parker had called two witnesses, but neither of them corroborated his evidence. The whole case was got up in consequence of a bad feeling, which Parker entertained towards Hazlehurst. He should however call witnesses to disprove Parker's evidence.

Edward Izod stated that he lodged at Hazlehurst's. On the night of the alleged knocking, about eleven o'clock, Hazlehurst accompanied him up stairs to the bedroom, and it was found that some part of the bedstead was loose, when they got a hammer to fasten it. He denied that there was any knocking at the partition by Hazlehurst. Parker knocked at it, and then Hazlehurst ceased hammering, and postponed the work until another time, because he would not molest Parker.

Parker was recalled and distinctly swore that it was a knocking against the partition as he had described, and not as though a person was repairing a bedstead.

William Feltham said he lodged at Hazlehurst's. He recollected Hazlehurst on the Thursday evening going out and making some observations by Parker's house, and talking rather loud. No threats were used, and no violence took place. Hazlehurst referred to the complaints that Parker had made about his house and called to him to come down and see that his house was then cleared. This was about eleven o'clock. Hazlehurst did tell Parker if he was a man he should like to face him.

By the magistrates clerk - Witness was a tobacconist, and had lodged in the house about three weeks. Witness had nothing to do with the house in the public line, but he was in partnership with Hazlehurst in the tobacco line, and had been so for three weeks.

Mr.Voules - The fact is I suppose, Hazlehurst enables you to make purchases, which you sell again, and give some of the profit to him for the use of his money !

Witness - That is so.

The magistrates, after a brief consultation, ordered Hazlehurst to enter into sureties to keep the peace for six months, himself in 20 and two others in 10 each, or one other in 20; also to pay the costs which were 14s. The sureties were entered into, the defendants uncle named Chell, being his bondsman for 20.

There was also an information laid by Parker against the same defendant for selling beer at an improper hour, but it was stated to the magistrates that it was laid against the wrong person. It appeared that the house had been transferred by William Hazlehurst to his brother George, and the information was against William the above defendant.

The defendant, to questions by the magistrates, said he had nothing to do with the house now, it was his brother George who kept it. He (William) had a house in George-street.

Parker was asked if he wished the complaint to be proceeded with, and he said he did not, as the house was now rather better conducted than it had been, for he believed the girls had been got rid of.

George Hazlehurst was then called in, and admonished as to the necessity of avoiding all farther complaint by conducting his house properly. This he promised to attend to.

The police were then desired to look very attentively after the beer-shops, the magistrates saying that the recorder when he was here, at the quarter sessions, had expressed his surprise that such houses were not more closely watched by the police.
The information was then dismissed, Mr.Voules remarking that Parker had got the wrong sow by the ear this time.

George Plumridge, and Charles his brother, the latter a mere boy, about eleven years of age, were charged with setting hook or night lines near an eyot in that part of the river rented by Mr.Henry Newman, opposite Sumpter Mead meadow.

Mr.Newman stated that on the evening of the 6th inst., he saw the defendants in a boat laying night lines for catching fish on his water. He spoke to them, and told the elder boy he had been looking out for him for some time. The boy was assisting; and it was astonishing the quantity of eels and other fish those and other persons obtained in this way. In fact a number of such persons made their living by this sort of poaching. As for George Plumridge he (Mr.Newman) had long been watching to catch him in the fact.

The defendants denied they were setting any lines.

The magistrates fined George Plumridge 20s including costs. They dismissed the younger defendant.

The defendant asked to be allowed time to pay the money, for he could not pay it now.

The Mayor - What time do you wish ?

Defendant - About five or six weeks sir.

Mayor - Oh ! No, we cannot do any such thing.

Mr.Newman - Gentlemen. It is a very bad practice to give such fellows any time at all, for when magistrates allow a month or so, they go to work in the mean time catching more fish, and then by selling it they are enabled to pay when the time is due; thus they pay the fine from the proceeds of our own property.

The defendant was eventually allowed a fortnight, and in default then to be committed to the House of Correction for 21 days.

[Before John Clode, Esq. (Mayor), and R.Tebbott, Esq.]

Frederick and Henry Wm. Plumridge, two brothers, were charged with being drunk and disorderly. It was stated they were very violent and abusive.
Verily these Plumridges are a numerous body, and exceedingly troublesome to the magistrates and the police. These two prisoners had been in custody the one nine and the other seven times, and they are notorious for their abuse of every body when in liquor.
They were reprimanded and discharged, with an assurance that on their next appearance they would be sent to the treadmill.

Samuel Saunders, beer-shop keeper of Bier-lane, was summoned for allowing persons to drink in his house before one o'clock on Sunday last - to wit at 12 o'clock - contrary to law, by which he had rendered himself liable to a penalty (this being his first offence) of 40s.

Daniel Grass, a policeman, stated that on Sunday about 12 o'clock, he and Clark, another policeman, went to the defendant's house, the front door of which was closed. Clark went in the back door and opened the front door for witness, when he saw in the tap-room five men and a woman drinking there. The woman and her husband, who was one of the men, were lodgers, but the others were not for they left the house.

The defendant said he did not draw any beer after 11 o'clock, and some of the persons were his lodgers.

The magistrates told him that he had no business to sell any beer at all on Sundays until one o'clock.

Mr.Gillman said, many beer-shop keepers imagined that they might draw and sell as much beer as they pleased before 11 o'clock , no matter how long it might take in drinking, thinking themselves safe if they did not draw any after 11 o'clock. The act of Parliament did not say anything about drawing beer, but of suffering it to be drunk.

The defendant said he had always understood that he might sell beer up to 11 o'clock during Sunday, and to keep his house closed during divine service. The abstract of the Act which he had got specified it so, and Mr.Sawbridge, the supervisor, had told him so. Therefore if he were wrong he had been deceived.

The magistrates said of that were the case, then the defendant had acted more from ignorance of the law than from wilfulness, and under the circumstances they would inflict the lowest penalty, namely , 5s and 11s costs.

The defendant complained of the hardship of his case after the instructions he had received from Mr.Strawbridge.

The bench said he had better apply to Mr.Strawbridge to repay him the money.

The defendant then paid the fine and costs.

Anne Newbury was charged on suspicion of stealing a piece of plaid stuff from Mr.Driver's shop in Peascod-street.
Owing to the absence of Mr.Driver from Windsor, and the shopman not being able to swear to the property, the prisoner was remanded to Monday next.

Jane Pearson, the girl who was remanded on Monday for cutting a boy named Parke severely on the head, was again brought up.
The magistrates taking into consideration the great provocation she had received from Parke and the other boys discharged her, but ordered her to be taken to the union workhouse, and when in a fit state to be removed to her own parish.

Rachel Onslow and Eliza Place were charged with being found wandering about in the meadows near the Long-walk. It was stated they had no home, but loitered about for the soldiers, and slept usually under the hedges. They each stated their age to be but 17. On promising to leave Windsor they were discharged.

Robert Brown of Spital, applied for a warrant to obtain possession of a small house he had let to a man named Till, a milkman, who had had a frequent notice to quit but had refused to give up possession. The usual notice was proved, and the warrant ordered to issue,

Egham Saturday July 16

The guardians of the poor for this parish have at length been elected. The commissioners having issued a special order to all unions that in the event of the guardians not being nominated at the time specified, that the parishes should forthwith proceed to an election, and Egham being one of those parishes, the election has this week taken place, when the following were elected:- Mr.Geo. Kimberley, Mr.C.J.Clarke, Mr.B.Burton, and Mr.E.Garraway, who will have to serve for the remainder of the year, namely until the 25th of March next.

Funeral of the late Hon. Mrs. Fox

Yesterday the funeral of this venerable and highly respected lady, the widow of that distinguished statesman the Right Hon. Charles James Fox, took place at Chertsey church. The ceremony was intended to be private, but persons of all classes were anxious to show their respect for one who has been so long and justly beloved, and who by her urbanity, kindness, and excessive benevolence, has acquired the esteem of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood of her own residence, St.Anne's Hill. At their own request, about forty respectable tradesmen of Chertsey, who had provided themselves with hatbands and gloves, and who were attired in deep mourning, were allowed to join the procession about half a mile from Chertsey, and accompany it to the church.
So intense was the general feeling of regret at the loss of this estimable lady, that many of the inhabitants of Chertsey kept their shops partially closed from the time of her death, and yesterday the generality of them were entirely closed.
At about one o'clock the mournful procession left the late deceased's residence at St Ann's Hill in the following order :- The hearse contained the body drawn by four horses and attended by pages. The coffin was a neat black one with furniture and lace in the Elizabethan style. On the coffin plate was the following inscription:- "To the Memory of the Honourable Elizabeth Bridget Fox, obit July 8th, 1842, aetat [?] ninety two years." Then followed two mourning coaches, the first containing Colonel Fox, (the executor), Lord Lilford, Sir R.Adair, and the Rev. Charles Cotton, vicar of Chertsey; the second contained Henry St. John, Esq., D.Grazebrook, Esq., C.J.Ives, Esq.; to these succeeded the private carriages of the deceased and Col.Fox, and the procession was closed by the tradesmen of the town as above noticed. A large concourse of spectators also assembled along the line of procession.
About two o'clock the procession arrived at the church, which was completely filled with the inhabitants of the town and surrounding neighbourhood, who appeared deeply sensible of the loss they had sustained. The funeral service was very impressively performed by the reverend vicar, and the body was consigned to its last resting place in a vault at the north-east end of the church-yard.
The funeral was conducted by Mr.Waterer, of Chertsey.
Lord Holland was prevented attending the funeral of his illustrious relative in consequence of his being absent from this country, we believe in Italy.
During the procession a little boy was knocked down and ridden over, and much anxiety was manifested for him. He was taken to Mr.Smith's surgery, where, upon examination, he was fortunately found to have been but slightly injured; his head was somewhat lacerated, but not seriously.

Since our notice of the death of this excellent lady in our last week's paper, we have been favoured with a copy of the marriage certificate of Charles James Fox, from the Wyton (Huntingdon) register of marriages, with the deceased, which is as follows:-

"Charles J.Fox, of the parish of Chertsey, in the county of Surrey, bachelor, and Elizabeth B.Cane, of this parish, were married in this church, by license, this 28th day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five by me,
"J.Perry , Rector,
"This marriage was solemnised between us } Charles James Fox, Elizabeth B.Cane.
"In the presence of } Mary Dassonville , Jerem. Bradshaw.

A correspondent in the Morning Chronicle at Huntingdon states that the deceased resided for a few weeks previous to her wedding, with the Rev.J.Perry, the rector of Wyton; that Mr.Fox, and that Mary Dassonville was Mrs.Fox's maidservant, and Jeremiah Bradshaw was the parish clerk, so that the marriage was strictly a private one.

Staines, Saturday, July 16

On Monday a numerous meeting of the commissioners of land-tax, resident within the Brentford, Staines, and Uxbridge divisions of Middlesex, was held at the Three Pigeons Inn, New Brentford, for the purpose of appointing seven commissioners for general purposes, and seven commissioners in the event of vacancies for each division, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the new income tax. Brentford - Commissioners for General Purposes:- Mr.H.Pownall, Spring-grove, Hounslow; Mr.George Baillie, Hanwell; Rev.Dr. Walmesley, Hanwell; Mr.C.Turner, Hanwell; Rev.H.S.Trimmer, Heston; Mr.T.Twining, Twickenham; Mr.J.B.Armstrong, Southall.

Commissioners in the event of Vacancies - Mr.J.Bailey, Twickenham; Major Harriot, Twickenham; Mr.T.Gibbs, Greenford; Mr.George Cooper, New Brentford; Mr.H.Webb Smith, Heston; Mr.Wm.Day, Isleworth; and Mr.John Farnell, Isleworth.

Staines. - Commissioners for General Purposes:- Sir John Gibbon, Bart., Stanwell; Colonel Wood, M.P., Littleton; Colonel T.Wood, M.P.; Littleton; Mr.C.Devon, Teddington Place; Mr. R.Sullivan, Ashford; Mr. T.W.Marryatt, Sunbury; Mr. R.Hedger, Fulham.

Commissioners in the event of Vacancies - Capt.Carpenter, Sunbury; Mr.Alex. Whightman, Sunbury; Mr. James Scott, Shepperton; Sir Horace Seymour, Sunbury; Mr. Osborne Yeats, Hampton; Mr.George Patterson, Stanwell; and Mr.Charles Ashby, Staines.

The Uxbridge list will be found under our Uxbridge head.

Uxbridge, Saturday, July 16.

The following is a list of the commissioners of the income and property tax for the Uxbridge division:- Sir William Saltonstall Wiseman, Bart., Hillingdon; Thos. Dagnall, Esq., Cowley; Thomas Twesdale Clarke, Esq., Harefield Place; Thomas Wilts Walford, Esq., Uxbridge; Edward Briggs, Esq., Hayes; Chas. Mills Esq., Little Hillingdon. All the commissioners met at the Kings Arms Inn, Uxbridge, on Monday last, to take the oaths of office, and they unanimously appointed Mr. Chas. Woodbridge, of Uxbridge, their clerk. The following gentlemen were chosen as commissioners to fill up vacancies:- Richard Henry Cox, Esq., Hillingdon House; Robert Crook Walford, Esq., Uxbridge; Algernon Frederick Greville, Esq., Uxbridge Common; Richard Fleming, Esq., Hillingdon; Thomas Henry Riches, Esq., Uxbridge; Chas.Stuart, Esq., Hillingdon; Ralph Stevens, Esq, Uxbridge.

High Wycombe, Saturday, July 16.

Income Tax - The following gentlemen are the acting commissioners for this borough, viz, R.B.Slater, Esq., Mr.Alderman Wheeler, W.Parker, Esq., Mr.Alderman Harman, Mr.Alderman Tatem, J.Nash,Esq., and R.Lucas, Esq.; Messrs. White and Griffits have been appointed assessors and collectors.

Town Council - At a meeting of the town council on Wednesday, on the motion of Mr.Alderman Lane, seconded by Mr.Justice Parker, Mr.John Harman, of High-street, was unanimously elected treasurer.

Berks Summers Assizes

These Assizes commenced on Monday last, at Abingdon, before Lord Chief Justice Tindal and Mr.Justice Erskine, the former of the Nisi Prius Court, and the latter in the Crown Court.
The calendar presented a list of 18 persons for trial. The following are the results:-

Crown Court

James Green, aged 22, for having on the 7th of Nov last, at Bucklebury, feloniously and maliciously assaulted and stabbed Daniel Mayors, with intent to disable him, or to do him some bodily harm, was sentenced to nine months hard labour.

John Lambert, 24, for having on the 8th of March, at Aldermaston, violently assaulted Emma Chamberlin, [contact me for details at the email address above], was sentenced to transportation for life.

Thomas Cock, 19, was charged with having on the 19th Feb., at Cholsey, maliciously stabbed William Sawyer, with intent to do him some bodily harm; but the case was postponed until the next Lent Assizes, the prisoner being in the meantime admitted to bail.

Samuel Acres [?], 21, was charged with having at Maidenhead stolen part of a plum pudding, a piece of cheese, and other articles, the property of John Robinson; he was also charged with having at Maidenhead stolen a pair of boots, the property of Wm.Hearne. - Acquitted.

Wm.Barnett, 34, and Wm.Clark, 22, were convicted of having, at Maidenhead, stolen a sheep, the property of Wm.Lynn. Barnett was sentenced to transportation for 13 years, and Clark to 12 months hard labour.

Francis Hazell, 51, was convicted of having on the 30th of April, at Chieveley, committed a certain felony , and sentence of death was recorded against him.

John Reiners, 23, was indicted for having, at Sunninghill, feloniously assaulted and stolen from the person of Geo.Brown, 2 7s. It appeared that the prosecutor was the coachman to Captain Bulkeley, of Clewer, near Windsor. On the 7th of June last Captain Bulkeley was at Ascot Races, and on the night of that day left his carriage on the course under the charge of the coachman, in order that he might secure a good place for the following (the Cup) day. About eight o'clock in the morning, the coachman, while on guard at his post, was surrounded by a gang of thieves, 40 or 50 in number, by whom he was knocked down, kicked, severely bruised, and his pockets emptied. It did not appear that he gave information of the robbery til the following morning, upon his masters arrival on the course, when he communicated the facts to him, and Captain Bulkeley having procured the assistance of a policeman, they went along the back of the course, with a view of discovering , if possible, any of the persons concerned in the outrage.

It was arranged that if Brown, the coachman, recognised any of the parties, he should give a private signal to his master and the policeman by holding up his hand. Brown very shortly met the prisoner, whom he immediately recognised as one of the most active in the attack upon him, and upon giving the signal agreed on to Captain Bulkeley, he was seen by the prisoner, who immediately rushed into the crowd and disappeared. Chase was at once given, and the gallant captain was too experienced a sportsman to suffer their prey to escape. After a short and sharp pursuit the prisoner was "run in to" and secured. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to be transported for 15 years.

Henry Draggett, 20, and Wm.Fulker, 19, were indicted for having on the 9th of June at Binfield, broken and entered the dwelling-house of George Green, and stolen therefrom a veteen jacket, a pair of trousers, a waistcoat, and a gun. The prisoner Fulker was further charged with having on the 11th of June, at Warfield, broken into the dwelling-house of Rich. Cusden, and stolen 12s 6d, his property; a pair of boots, the property of Sarah Cusden, and a broach and other articles, the property of Mary Cusden. They were each sentenced to 18 months hard labour.

Owen Cox, alias John Fox, 57, for having on the 30th of June, at Sandhurst, stolen from the person of James Goddard, one half sovereign, one crown piece, 2 half crowns, one shilling, one sixpence, and one bead necklace, was sentenced to ten years transportation.

Wm.Hatch, 30, for having on the 27th of June, at Binfield, stolen a bedstead, a bed, and other articles, the property of Richard Clarke, was sentenced to eight months hard labour.

William Brooks, 70, for having on the 2nd of July , at East Ilsley, stolen from the person of Mary Allen, a half crown and two shillings, was sentenced to eight months hard labour.

Charles Evans, 23, was tried for having on the 4th of June, at Wokingham, stolen a waistcoat, the property of Jos.Johnson. He was acquitted.

Mary Davis, alias Mary Pickerwill [?], 68, was indicted for having on the 13th of June, at Reading, stolen from the dwelling house of John Easby, 12 blankets, 2 quilts, 2 table cloths, and 4 shirts. She was also charged with having on the 29th of June, at Reading, stolen from the dwelling-house of William Trayborn, a silver spoon, his property:- Two years hard labour.

Henry Goodenough, 19, for having, at Maidenhead, stolen a shirt, the property of Chas.Wakefield, was sentenced to three months hard labour.

Thomas Barber, 52, and Edward Vaughan, 33, who had been out on bail since the last assize, were indicted for having assaulted a constable in the execution of his duty, and they were each sentenced to one month's imprisonment.

Of the 18 prisoners tried, it appeared from the calendar that only two could read and write well; six who could read and write but imperfectly; two who could read only; and eight who could neither read nor write.

Bunce v. Kennington and Another

This was an action to recover damages for the loss of a terrier bitch, which it was alleged had been destroyed by the defendants.

The plaintiff is a wheelwright and ratcatcher living at Sandhurst, and in September 1840, was the owner of the terrier bitch which formed the subject of this action, which appeared to be an animal of extraordinary merit, having been known to have killed two hundred rats in a morning, but to have a virtuous antipathy to all sorts of game of every other kind. It seemed the plaintiff had four sons; and though they all professed to have no sporting propensities beyond ratcatching, one of them was the owner of a gun, with which, accompanied by the terrier bitch, one fine morning in September, 1840, he took a walk upon Sandhurst-common. He was met there by the defendant, Mr.Kennington, a gentleman of fortune living in the neighbourhood, and Williams, his servant, who, seeing Master Bunce, emerging from a small belt of plantation belonging to Mr.Kennington, demanded what he was doing there, and whose bitch it was. Mr.Kennington collared young Bunce, who refused to say to whom he belonged, and Mr.Kennington thereupon directed Williams to put a string round the bitch's neck, and carry it off.

It was put into a stable and there tied up, but in the course of the night she contrived to twist the cord round her neck over a bar, and was found dead the next morning. It appeared that the bitch was daily expected to present her master with a promising litter of whelps, and it was urged that her value was greatly increased thereby, their sire being a dog of merit, and only surpassed by the mother. It appeared further that Master Bunce had been for the alleged trespass, upon this occasion, fined 10s, with 10s costs, and by way of a set-off this action was commenced shortly afterwards. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 40s damages.

Bucks Summer Assizes

The business of these assizes commenced on Saturday last at Buckingham, before Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr.Justice Williams, the former presiding in the Crown Court, and the latter in the Nisi Prius Court.

There were only 12 prisoners in the calendar for trial, but several of them were for very serious offences, viz., murder, infanticide, cutting and maiming, &c.
The following is a brief summary of the proceedings:-

David Brook, aged 33, a deaf and dumb man, stood charged with cutting and stabbing Samuel Perkins, with intent to maim and disfigure him, and also to resist his lawful apprehension. It appeared that the prisoner being on his way from the manufacturing districts to London, in search of work as a cotton-weaver, came to Aylesbury on the 10th of June last, and there began to solicit alms. For this purpose he went to various inns, and handed round several cards, the purport of which, however, was now kept out of view, as those produced in court were not found on the prisoner's person, but at his lodgings. For some reason, which did not transpire, the police were set in motion after the prisoner, who, after having been taken by one, made his escape, but falling in with another, he was again taken into custody after a violent struggle, in which his captor received from him several wounds in his groin, loin, and left arm. When finally secured, an open knife was firmly clenched in the prisoner's right hand, and in his pocket were found 1 1s 1/2d. He was found guilty and sentenced to 12 months hard labour.

Sarah Howes, 20, was indicted for having murdered her illegitimate child - She was acquitted.

Elizabeth Smith, 41, was indicted for having at Loughton, murdered her child, John Steven Smith, aged six months, by drowning him in a pond. She was acquitted on the ground of insanity, and ordered to be taken care of.

James Cartwright, 23, who had been continued from the last Assizes holden in Aylesbury, to appear and answer a bill of indictment to be preferred against him for perjury, and who had been liberated in the meantime on bail, was now acquitted.

John Phillips, 64, for having, on the 30th of June, at Newport Pagnel, stolen a shawl, the property of William Curtis, was sentenced to three months hard labour.

Thomas Mitchell, 16, was convicted of having, of the 4th of July, at Stoke Poges, [email me at address above] had sentence of death recorded against him. He was afterwards sentenced to transportation for life.

James Favell and Elijah Favell were convicted to stealing a copper, and were each sentenced to one month's hard labour, and to be once privately whipped.

As regarded the following prisoners the grand jury ignored the bills presented to them:- Mary Chapman, 81, charged with having on the 26th of June, at Wendover, murdered the male bastard child of Sarah Ginger; Thos.Smith, 53, John Smith, 20, and Alfred Smith, 15, charged with having on the 14th of June, at Aylesbury, stolen a mare, the property of Geo.Parkins.

Nisi Prius Court
The Queen v. Smith and Hedges.

These two persons were indicted, Smith for horse stealing, and Hedges as an accessory after the fact, in harbouring and concealing Smith, the principal. The indictment had been removed by certiorari from the Quarter Sessions into this court, and on its being called on, it appeared that Smith, the principal, did not appear to take his trial. The learned judge, in consequence, therefore ordered Smith's recognizances to be estreated, and those of Hedges to be respited.

Clayton Bart., v. Corby

The plaintiff is the owner of Harleyford, the well known seat on the banks of the Thames, near Marlow, as also of very extensive estates in that neighbourhood. The defendant is a tenant of Mr.Williams, also a gentleman of large property in this county, residing in the vicinity of Marlow. This was an action of trespass for digging clay on Marlow-common, in derogation of the manorial rights of the plaintiff, and to this the defendant pleaded the uninterrupted exercise of that privilege, as appurtenant to a certain brink kiln on the common for sixty years. A second plea set up a similar enjoyment of the same right for 30 years, and the affirmative issue being cast on the defendant, his learned counsel, after detailing the progress of the suit up to a former trial, and a rule absolute for this second appeal to a jury, proceeded to call a host of aged men, inhabitants of Marlow, and others, who proved that from 1761 downwards one Webb, in whose occupation the brick-kiln of the defendant then was, had constantly dug clay from the adjoining common. At this time the premises were the property of the plaintiff's ancestors, but in 1793 it passed by sale of the land, lord of the defendant, together with all rights and advantages theretofore held and enjoyed together with it. So that whatever doubt might be cast upon the defendant's case under the first plea, by reason of the unity of the estate in fee, and the right in question in one person, it was clear that the right had been exercised separately and adversely for more than thirty years, in which case it was contended that the defendant would be entitled to a verdict on the second plea, which would be sufficient for his purpose. Mr.Byles, for the plaintiff, for the plaintiff, called various witnesses to show though clay had indeed been taken from the locus in quo, yet that had not been done as of right by Webb, or by the defendant himself, but under favour of the lord of the manor and by purchase. The jury, after a few minutes spent in deliberation, found for the defendant on the second issue.