Prisoner name: William Crawford. Court and date of trial: Oxford Epiphany Assizes...

Prisoner name: William Crawford.

Court and date of trial: Oxford Epiphany Assizes 1825.

Crime: Assault.

Initial sentence: 3 months imprisonment.

Annotated (Outcome): Granted. Remission prepared February 1825.

Other papers: Letter from Mr Bowles to Mr Ashurst asking him to review the case of William Crawford as Information was not available on the trial.

Affidavit of George Huggins stating that Mary Paish, the prosecutrix, had attacked her husband with a poker. When William Crawford intervened, she hit him with a poker and then he had hit her in self defence.

Affidavit of Mary Harding stating that on the evening Mary Paish showed no sign of injury.

Affidavit of John Laurance stating that he cannot swear the prosecutrix hit the defendant but can swear the defendant only hit her once.

Affidavit of William Paish, husband of the prosecutrix, stating that his wife had hit him with a poker and William Crawford had come to his assistance. When she attacked the defendant she had hit the defendant with the poker and he had then hit her in self defence.

Affidavit of Elizabeth Smith who stated that Mary Paish had asked her to swear that the tooth which she claimed had been knocked out was in place on Monday morning.

Statement on behalf of the Magistrates and Gentlemen of Abingdon stating their belief in the previous depositions and requesting remittance of the sentence.

Letter from Thomas Dilley, Governor of the Gaol at Oxford castle, stating that William Crawford has conducted himself particularly well.

Letter from Mr Ashurst, Chairman of the last Epiphany Sessions at Oxford forwarding affidavits and letter from the Governor of the Gaol and stating that he had received from Mr Bowles, a magistrate at Berkshire which put the assault charge in a different light. He recommends remittance of the sentence.

Letter from Mr Ashurst, Chairman of the last Epiphany Sessions at Oxford stating that having read the affidavits he thought the case was a Public House disturbance and the sentence would have been no more than one months imprisonment which the defendant has already served.