Hereford Journal 30th July 1856
VIOLENT ASSAULT ON A WOMAN
Christopher Herbert, 32, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding Ann Neat, with intention to do her grievous bodily harm. Mr W.H Cooke for the prosecution, Mr Skinner for the defence.
The parties live in Gaol-lane, Hereford, and on the 14th instant the prosecutrix was walking near the common pump, when the prisoner, after calling her very opprobrious names and spitting in her face, picked up a pole and struck her with both hands on the head, drawing blood.
In cross-examination prosecutrix acknowledged that she had on a previous day scolded prisoners children, and had removed a painted board which prisoner had placed against her fence to dry.
Mrs Elizabeth Smith, a neighbour, corroborated the evidence of prosecutrix as to the assault.
Mr James Beavan attended prosecutrix for a scalp wound; she had been under his care ever since; the wound was not a dangerous one in its immediate effects, but might have produced erysipelas.
P.C Jones, who took the prisoner into custody, deposed that he was sober at the time.
Mr Skinner put it to the jury whether, from what they had in evidence, the general tone og Gaol-lane was not of a very noisy character, and did not justify them in supposing that there was a good deal of aggravation on the part of the prosecutrix, (who, however, represented herself as a sort of patternwoman in a cantankerous neighbourhood) in bullying the prisoners children, and throwing down the harmless board. It was no doubt unjustifiable to strike a woman with the pole he had hastily snatched up; but was there evidence to bear out the allegation of intending to do the prosecutrix some grievous bodily harm?
The learned judge pointed out to the jury that it was for them, taking into account the suddenness of the takings up of the pole, to say whether the prisoner intended the infliction of grievous bodily harm; if they did not think so, they could get rid of the felonious part of the charge, and find him guilty of unlawful wounding. Less than that they could not under this indictment convict him of.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of unlawful wounding.
His Lordship said it was quite clear from the evidence that the prisoner was a dangerous and quarrelsome person, and had been guilty of a most unmanly act. It was necessary to mark, by some severity, his lordships sense of his conduct; and he should therefore sentence him to be imprisoned with hard labour for six months.
