Bell Inn, 41 High Street, Chipping Sodbury BS37 6BA

John Goodman 23, was charged with maliciously assaulting John Love, with a sharp instrument, at Chipping Sodbury, on the 28th Sep. last, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. The prosecutor, John Love, stated that he was a labourer living at Chipping Sodbury where a mop was held on the 28th of September. Between ten and eleven o’clock on the night of that day, he (prosecutor) with his wife and another female went into the Bell Inn, in that town, where they saw the prisoner, who challenged him to fight, and after some words knocked him down. They then went out into the street and fought a round, when they were separated. Afterwards prosecutors and prisoners wives quarrelled and fought; and after that the prisoner came up to prosecutor in the street, and struck him a blow from behind with a sharp instrument, which passed through his hat and ear, and wounded the back part of his head.

 

—George Rice stated that he heard a noise in the street about twelve o clock, and on going to the spot, saw the two women fighting and the prosecutor standing near. The prisoner soon afterwards came up, and standing near the gutter, said, “ If Love comes to me again, I will give him the length of it”  and witness saw that he had something in his hand, but he could not distinguish what it was. Love came towards the prisoner, and witness went away. Mr. Thompson, apothecary, stated that the prisoner came up to him with a wound through his ear, which appeared to have been caused by a sharp instrument, and there was a wound on the head immediately behind the ear. This witness, in cross-examination, admitted that it was possible the wound might have been inflicted by a fall upon a sharp stone; but if so made, the stone must have been very sharp to account for the very clear nature of the wound.

 

Another witness, Charles Mills, gave a somewhat different account of the whole transaction from the other witnesses. According to his account, there were two or three separate scuffles between the parties, and falls took place, and the prosecutor had followed the prisoner along the street to renew the fight. It was also brought out that the prosecutor had been convicted before the magistrates and fined for assault upon the prisoner’s wife, and it was argued by Mr. Watson for the defence, that this circumstance might have made the prosecutor more desirous to press and give an improperly serious colouring to the present charge.

 

The jury returned verdict of guilty the assault, but not with the malicious intent laid in the indictment. The learned judge strongly animadverted on the use of dangerous instruments and sentenced the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment and hard labour, having already been in custody nearly six months.