317. JOHN MILLS proceedingsdefend was indicted for that he being a person of a wicked mind and disposition, with force and arms, on purpose, and of malice aforethought, and by laying in wait, on the 29th of March last, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously, did make an assault on one Thomas Brazier proceedingsvictim , being a subject of our Lord the King, and in the peace of God, and our said Lord the King, then and there being, with intent to main, and disfigure the said Thomas Brazier < no role > , and with a knife made of iron and steel, value 1 d. unlawfully and feloniously, did slit his nose, with intention to maim and disfigure him against the statute .

THOMAS BRAZIER < no role > sworn.

I am carman to Messrs. Barwis and Co. grocers, No. 28, Snow-hill, I was going up Holborn-hill , past St. Andrew's church; on the 26th of March last, about a quarter after eight; I was walking opposite the tail of my cart to watch it, I had eleven lumps of sugar in my cart, and a man came and struck me across the mouth with something very cold, I cannot tell what it was, then there was four at the tail of my cart; I got my stick out to defend myself, they kept hooting and hallooing, and making a nose, then hurled great stones at me, and hit me a terrible blow on my left leg; then there came a great many of them round me, at the bottom of Fleet-market, and they surrounded me at Mr. Furneaux and Wilson's door, where I tried to push in but could not, two women got to the door and prevented me; I held my stick up before my head, to defend my head: They struck at me and cut me several times, they stabbed the frock I have on in four holes, and they cut a bit of my hair off, and a great gash in my head; here is the handkerchief I had on that night, and it was whole then; there is that mark that I got a stab through the ribs.

Where else did he cut you? - No otherwise than across the nose and face.

Did you see who it was that cut you? - I cannot swear to the man.

Court. Did you see what weapon it was with? - No.

Is any part of your nose cut my friend? - It is cut, the middle of my nose.

Prisoner's Council. I think you say you did not know the person of the prisoner? - I recollect something of his face.

This was a very dark night? - Not so very dark.

No moon at all that night, and there was a great mob, if I understand you rightly? - Not till I was cut.

This was in the open street? - Yes, it was on the paved stones.

Court. What was all this quarrel about? - We had no quarrel at all.

How came all these people to have such an inveterate dislike to you? - I cannot say, my Lord, unless it was the night before; I disappointed them the night before, in robbing my cart.

Did you know none of them? - Not as I can swear to.

Had they no acquaintance with you? - No, I never was acquainted with such people.

What people were they? - I should not call them very good sort of people, to go about getting their bread that way.

I do not find that night that they attacked your cart at all? - It was a good reason why, because I suppose opportunity did not suit them.

Court. Was you sober? - There is my master who will say, if ever he knew me drunk in his life, or any body that knows me, I was coming from the other end of the town, from Grosvenor-street, I was bringing eleven lumps of sugar.

Did you lose any sugar that night? - No, as they told me I lost none.

Did they say any thing to you? - No farther than

"damn him, knock him down," I heard no other expressions but hooting, and hallooing, there was no words between us.

What was you to be knocked down for? - I cannot tell that.

Had you run against any body with your cart? - Not that I know of.

Did any body quarrel with you, for running against any body? - No, never, neither that day nor any other time.

Court. Then you do not know why they made this attack upon you? - No.

Whereabouts was it that you was attacked before? - About St. Andrew's Church the first time, I have been attacked three times, as I came down the hill the last time, I had nothing in my cart but my bags.

You do not know that these were the same persons that attempted to rob your cart? - No.

Had you had any quarrel with any body any short time before that? - No, never, not at all.

ALEXANDER SCOTT < no role > This name instance is in set 1530. sworn.

I am engine keeper of St. Andrew's, Holborn, I know Brazier: coming down Holborn-hill, at the end of Plumbtree-court, I heard a noise; and I saw Brazier with what they call a stretched staff in his hand, which belongs to the cart, holding it at eight or nine people of whom the prisoner is one: Brazier was at the tail of his cart, halloo! says the people,

"damn him, knock him down; now blast him, why do not you go it," and he in the mean while kept aiming at them.

Court. Did he strike? - He did not strike; one says,

"damn your eyes where is your knives;" several said so; at the end of the Swan-yard they trod my shoes down at the heels; I still kept close to them, but said nothing at all, and as Brazier was opening Mr. Furneaux and Wilson's door with his right hand to get in, the prisoner cut him with a knife, across his ear to his nose.

Court. How near was you to the prisoner at the time he did that? - About two yards, and the blood of the man's face flew on my left hand; they made another aim at him, and broke one of the panes of glass, and there is the blood on the door to be seen now.

What was that aim made with? - With a stick; it was broke by one of the gang; my eyes were fixed on the prisoner.

Could you see whether it was one of the gang, or whether it was Brazier? - I will not say that.

Are you sure the prisoner was the man that cut Brazier? - I am sure of it.

What became of him after this? - I stooped down to put my shoes up at heel, and they were all gone.

When did you see the prisoner again? - Not till this day week, I saw him at a publick house by the Rotation-office, in Litchfield-street.

In custody? - Yes, I spoke to Mr. Barwis's people about the man being cut, and I said, I knew some of them, by being engine keeper of St. Andrew's, Holborn, there are a number of pick-pockets and thieves attend that place, and my idea was to look at them; this is the man that cut the man; I have seen him before on that spot an hundred times and more.

What business did he follow? - I do not know.

Did you know his name? - No.

Did you know the person of ever another of them? - I know the persons of several that were there.

What are they? - Thieves.

How long before the cut was made, was it that you saw him? - It was done in less than five minutes; there was hallooing and hooting, the same as they would at a mad bullock; I heard no quarrel, I did not hear the man say a word; I heard them cry,

"damn your eyes, where is your knives; ah! blast you, where is the knives;" and he cut him; I saw him do it.

Can you tell what it was that offended them? - I did not see the beginning of it.

Prisoner's Council. You say you had not an observation of above four or five minutes? - No.

So then all you said was, you knew some of them? - Yes.

You did not say to Mr. Barwis's people that you knew the man that had cut Brazier's face? - No.

Nor you did not tell Brazier that you knew the person very well, and had seen him an hundred times? - No, Sir, if I had known where to have found him, I would have gone that night and took him.

Did you, to Mr. Barwis's people describe the person and dress of the prisoner? - Yes, I have told my Lord now, I knew him before; I did not say so before.

I should think it was natural to have said so then? - I do not know, I knew the prisoner's face; I cannot be deceived in a man's face.

WILLIAM ROBERTS < no role > sworn.

I was going along Whitecross-street, I happened to meet with the prisoner, I said, to the rest of my brother officers that were with me, here is Mills, he is wanted for cutting the carman coming down Holborn-hill; I immediately took him in custody, and took this knife from him, and afterwards he said, he wished he had put it into my bloody hearts liver up to the bilt, all of us; and that if he had seen me ten minutes sooner, I should have been a dead man; he said nothing about the carman.

Prisoner's Council. What are you? - An officer belonging to Justice.

You have been unlucky enough to be a lodger just by here, have not you some time, you know what I mean? - Yes, and what of that.

- HATTON sworn.

I am an officer of St. Ann's, Westminster, I was present when this man was apprehended; I saw this knife taken from him, and he declared there, if he had ten yards more of liberty, he would run it up into our bloody hearts.

THOMAS TIBBS < no role > sworn.

I am constable of St. George's, Bloomsbury, I was present when the prisoner was apprehended; Roberts saw him coming along; we went to him, and laid hold of him, and he was very unwilling to go, and he said, if he had but a little more liberty, damn his eyes if he would have gone at all.

Did you tell him, you wanted him for cutting the carman? - Yes, he said, he knew nothing of it, and that knife was found upon him, he said then, that if he had but ten yards further liberty, he would have stuck it into our bloody hearts, and many more bad expressions of the kind: he damned us and would not be taken then, he and some more of them were going to take a walk that afternoon.

He said nothing more about the carman? - At Litchfield-street, he seemed to be very much confused when he saw the carman, and Mr. Scott came, and I thought I heard a faint word come out, that he was a dead man; he rather dropped his countenance, and I understood him in the best manner I could, that he was a dead man.

Prisoner's Council. If I understood you right, you do not know what it was he did say? - He spoke something that was the best I could understand, but he changed countenance greatly.

BENJAMIN HOLLINGSWORTH < no role > sworn.

I am a surgeon, I was called in between eight and nine in the evening, of the 26th of March, I found Brazier in Mr. Barwis's counting house, I found one wound on the right side of his face, which divided the under part of his nose, that is the part which separates the two nostrils, which divides the upper part; the whole cheek was divided quite in two, so that I could see his teeth and gums from the nose to the ear quite; he had two other cuts on the left ear, one took off the lower part of the left ear, and the other was underneath it.

According to your account that part of the nose was fairly cut through? - The under part that separates the nostrils was divided quite, we call it the sceptum; the under end, and each side of each nostrils was touched, but not much divided, that gristle was divided so, that it was laid down.

Court. Is it what you commonly understand by slitting the nose? - It belonged to the nose, the whole lay over his chin, and his teeth shewed through.

Court. A deep cut that penetrated quite through the whole substance of that part, and so through the cheek to the bone? - Yes, the cheek was cut through compleat.

Court to Prisoner. John Mills < no role > , you stand charged with a most grievous offence indeed, and the witness has sworn positively to you, what have to say for yourself.

PRISONER's DEFENCE.

I am quite innocent, I never saw any one of the men in my life.

Court to Prisoner. Can you give the jury any satisfactory account of yourself, that may induce them to believe that you are not a man that would commit such an offence, what way of life have you been in? - I am a heel-maker.

Can you shew the jury that you are an honest man, that you live in a habit of honesty and sobriety? - I do in no other way.

Have you friends here to speak to your character? - I have none now, they were obliged to go home, I thought my tryal would have come on last week.

Court. You could not suppose that, nor could your friends; there is no pretence for it.

Court. Gentlemen of the jury, this prisoner stands indicted for an outrage which is charged, as having been committed on the person of one Thomas Brazier < no role > , which the indictment brings within the scope and meaning of the act of parliament passed in the reign of Charles < no role > the IId. commonly called the Coventry Act, which was made on a particular occasion, when certain armed men had laid in wait for Sir John Coventry < no role > , a man of rank of that time, who had given offence to somebody, and they meant to wound and disfigure him by slitting his nose, and by other wounds and maims to disfigure his person, and possibly ultimately to kill him: that was the foundation of this act of parliament which recites that particular transaction, and

"that

"if any person shall on purpose," (you will attend to all the words here)

"and of malice

"aforethought and by laying in wait, unlawfully

"cut out or disable the tongue, put

"out an eye, slit the nose, cut off the

"nose, or cut off or disable any limb or

"member, with intention in so doing to

"maim or disfigure in any manner before

"mentioned, such person shall be guilty

"of a capital offence." You see therefore it is not the more simple outrage of one person upon another that is the subject of this charge; the mere wounding a man, the mere assaulting a man and slitting his nose, or otherwise wounding him, not attended with those circumstances so particularly mentioned, would still remain a great misdemeanor only; or if it came to what is called in the law maiming, it must be an offence of another description; more is necessary to constitute this offence; here the outrage is to be committed with a certain degree of preparation, watching an opportunity for the purpose, and with a certain degree of deliberation, that may mark intentional malice, a wilful and deliberate intended act of cruelty; that is what is imputed to this man: In short he stands accused of having wilfully, deliberately, maliciously, on purpose, and by watching an opportunity for it, and with intention to maim, having actually slit the nose of this Brazier. Now the question you are to try will be, whether he is guilty of the offence as it is described, therefore you will watch the circumstances which shew the deliberation, and the premeditation, and the intent to commit this particular crime, I cannot say you have much assistance from the evidence you have heard; for it is left a good deal to conjecture, to make out what was the ground which these people (be they who they may) had for attacking this man in the manner in which he was attacked; it is a conjecture, that it was done by way of revenge, because he was so watchful, that he would not suffer a parcel of thieves to rob his master's cart; therefore they meant by way of revenge, to mark any man, who should dare to be so vigilant a servant to his master, and to deter other servants in future, from preventing their committing their depredations: Whether that was their reason, will be one of the subjects for you to judge of; and perhaps, that may furnish you with a sufficient key, by which to understand all this case, and which may be a sufficient foundation for you to infer, that when these people found they could not attack the cart with success; that they set themselves to consider how to set a mark on the man who prevented them; in order to punish him, and to deter others from being guilty towards them of that sort of diligence, which prevented them from committing their intended robbery: If that is not the key to it, I profess I am perfectly at a loss to know, whether it was a sudden violent impulse of rage, on some sudden quarrel, which I cannot come at; or whether it was some other act of revenge on some other ground which has not come out; the prosecutor prosesses not to know the cause, and none of the witnesses are able to tell: the prosecutor tells you, &c.

(Here the learned Judge summed up the evidence as before mentioned).

As to the prisoner's saying he was a dead man, though it manifests a degree of conscious guilt, yet you will observe, that words which are not heard distinctly, are not to be relyed upon. Gentlemen, this being the nature of the evidence, the prisoner rests his defence on a general averment of not guilty: You are therefore to consider, whether he is proved to your satisfaction to be the man, who cut this Brazier in the manner you have heard; and in the next place, whether the manner of it, and the circumstances attending it, are sufficient to satisfy you that it was done maliciously, of malice aforethought, and by laying in wait, and with intent to disfigure.

Every riotous outrage that is committed on a man, certainly is not within this Act of parliament; there may be a sudden quarrel between persons, and if one man should from the maliciousness of his heart take out a knife; if death had followed, it might be murder, but if death did not ensue, it would remain an assault in the consideration of law, but nothing else but an assault: To make it more, it must be attended with those circumstances of preparation, premeditation and deliberation, and intending to do that sort of injury: It rests entirely upon the engine-maker, as to the person of the prisoner; and he swears very positively, if you are satisfied that he has spoken upon good grounds, that the prisoner is the man that gave the wound, then we are advanced thus far towards compleating the present enquiry: if he is the man that committed the fact, the next question is upon those grounds of deliberation, preparation, premeditated malice, and intend to do this sort of mischief which I have mentioned, and which make a considerable, part of this offence; and as to which I cannot find myself a particular ground for this outrage, what it was that led to it, is to me extremely in the dark, and therefore very difficult to find a probable cause for; the engine-maker has told you, that before this cut was given, they said where is your knifes, and that after the cry, where is your knifes, it was that this cut was given; now if that was the signal that was to be held out for them, and one drew his knife, and took the first opportunity to give this man the cut, this is laying in wait here for him; if that is not sufficient, it is hard to find any circumstances, in the case from which it can be inferred. If he is not guilty of the indictment in the extent of it, he is not guilty at all; and in pronouncing guilty or not guilty, you will take the circumstances all of them into your consideration, if you find him guilty of the whole offence, then you will say so; if you find he was wounded by the prisoner; but that it was the effect of some sudden impulse, not of deliberation or malice, then he must be acquicted; if you have any doubt whether he was the person that gave the wound, of course you will acquit him.

Jury. Was the prisoner one of the gang the two preceding nights.

Court. With respect to laying in wait, a man who has a purpose in his mind to do such kind of mischief, and does deliberately watch an opportunity to do it, I think lays in wait: I do not think it is necessary for a man to plant himself in any place, and then to come out of his lurking place to do it, if he forms such an intention, and comes up behind him, and takes the opportunity of doing, that is laying in wait; and I think we need not stretch that circumstance to any particular length of time, or to any extraordinary degree of preparation, if he seizes a convenient opportunity of doing it, and does it with deliberation.

GUILTY , Death .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Baron EYRE < no role > .