From the Kentish Gazette, 28 July 1857.

FRIDAY. CROWN COURT.

UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING.

(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)

Charles Plaistow, who had been on bail, for wounding W. H. Martin, with intent to do him bodily harm, at Hartford, on the 14th July.

Mary Ann Martin, wife of the landlord of the "Windmill" public-house, at Dartford:- On Tuesday night, the 14th July, prisoner came to the bar - he was not quite sober; he asked for drink, which she refused, thinking she had trusted him with as much as she ought to do. On refusal, he abused her in very disgusting language, and her husband coining out, the prisoner knocked him down in the passage and kicked him. Several from the tap room afterwards assisted the prisoner in his attack on her husband; and she was also knocked down by prisoner’s wife.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton:— He had been drinking in the house during the afternoon; her husband ordered him off and not to insult her; her husband gave no provocation, and did not threaten to turn him out.

W. Henry Martin, whose face was strapped up, corroborated the statement as his wife as to the abuse the prisoner had dealt out to her, and his expostulating with him and ordered him out, when he (prisoner) struck him and kicked him when down; others from the tap room joined him in dealing out blows.

Mr. Debenbam, surgeon, stated the condition in which he found the prosecutor on the night in question, there being bruises and cuts about his face, and bruises on his legs, as if from hiving been kicked — there was a wound on the left eyebrow. He was still suffering considerably, and was in a dangerous state.

Cross-examined:— He had been bleeding from the nose for the last two or three days; blood had also flowed from the wound on the brow.

The prisoner was found guilty of unlawfully wounding.

A witness having been called to speak to prisoner’s generally quiet and good character, his lordship said his conduct towards the landlady was inconsistent with that, as she was perfectly justified in refusing to supply more drink.

Prisoner said that Martin pushed him off the step.

Hiss lordship replied that he was justified in using all reasonable force to put him (prisoner) out after he had refused to go, and particularly after abusing the landlord’s wife. He (his lordship) might be induced to look upon the blow at first given as the act of a violent man in liquor; but further than that, there was the attack of his unruly companions, who rushed out and assaulted prosecutor in a most brutal manner, and instead of showing that he had no common design with them, he (the prisoner) seized him by the hair and beat his head against the door-post, which had reduced him to the deplorable state in which they saw him that day. He should treat it as an act of a most violent and dastardly character — for four or five men to set upon one; and adjudge the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment in the House of Correction.