The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-08 00:00:00

BOROUGH SESSIONS.

The quarterly sessions for the borough of Liverpool
commenced yesterday morning, in the Crown Court of
St. George's-hall, before Gilbert Henderson, Esq., the
recorder. The following gentlemen were sworn on the

GRAND JURY.
Alexander Sleigh, broker, 18, Hackin's-hey (foreman).
• • Henry Barnes, merchant, Rumford-place.
• Heary Case, insurance broker, Exchange-buildings.
William Coubrough, merchant. North John-street.
Wm. Owen Carter, slate merchant, South John-street.
Hugh Dixon, merchant, India-buildings.
W. H. Dixon, merenant, Rumford-place.
Kirkman Finlay, merchant, York-buildings.
John Fairrie, iron merchant, North John-street.
John Gouldie, broker, Exchange-street East.
John Golding, sharebroker, Tithebarn-street.
John M. Joseph. merchant, Brunswick-buildings.
--Leorge...llolt, jun., merchant, Water-street.
C. J. King, merchant, Hackin's-hey.
Lewin Mozley, banker, Lord-street.
John Patterson, merchant. Brunswick-street.
James Radford, corn merchant, Forrest-street. • _
Edmund Thompson, shlpbroker, Water-street.
James Wilson, corn merchant, Doran's-lane.
John Marsden, brassfounder, Northuniberland-terrace.
Frederick A. Tamplin, Tnergant, Brunswick-street.
The Queen's proclamation having been read by the
clerk of the court,
The Recorder addressed the grand jury as follows :
Gentlemen,—ln the course of the last six weeks you will
find that eighty-six persons have been committed for,
trial. Most of the cases are light in .their character;
and if we were to abstract nine cases of stealing from
shop doors, and the charges against prostitutes of, stealing
in the streets, the number would be very greatly reduced.
There are several cases of embezzlement, somovery trifling,
others of more importance, especially one charge against
a clerk in the Telegraph Company's office for embezzle-
ment. It would appear that the offence of picking pockets
has become more common in this town. You will find
one charge against a woman of picking a pocket in
Bold-street. A man is charged with picking pockets
at the door of the Amphitheatre.; and there is another
case in which there are two charges against the same
man of picking pockets in • the baths. Now, this is ft
very audacious offence, and the offender, if convicted,
would be liable to 15 years' penal servitude. But, by a
curious anomaly, and, as it seems to me, a serious defect
in the law, if he had stolen £2,000 from the bank (a
case which has happened in this town); he would, at
most, be liable to two years' imprisonment. I hope that
in the amendment of the Larceny Acts, which is pro-
posed next session, a remedy will: be introduced for these
great defects, which I have been almost afraid to men-
tion, lest persons would speculate upon the probability
of their receiving the lesser punishment. There is a
charge against a man and woman for neglecting their
child ; and I may tell you that, in point of law, if,
when a child is of too tender years to provide. food for
itself, the mother' or the parents of the child, whose
duty it is to supply it with food, wilfully neglect to do
so, and death ensues, that would be a case of man-
slaughter. • Happily, in this case, death has not ensued,.
and what extent of neglect I am not prepared to say;
but I should recommend you, if you find that the child
suffered' serious injury in consequence of the wilful
neglect of the parents, to find a true bill, and then the
law will be more fully discussed and considered in this
court.

The Grand Jury then retired, and, having found'
true bills, the trials were proceeded with. The follow-
ing sentences were delivered:—
John King (aged 31), stealing' the sum of £3O, one
pocket-book, and sundry papers, the monies and pro-
perty of David Smart, from his person; and one pocket-
book, and the 'sum of £3 13s. Gd., and other 'goods, the
monies and property of Thomas Allott, from his person,.
six years' penal servitude. Bridget Mclver (30), steal-
ing the sum of £1 14. Gd., and one purse, the monies
and property of Stanley Horrocks, from his person, five
years. George Lloyd (23), beinr, a clerk to Joseph Haigh
and another, did receive and 'lake into his possession
for and on account of his said masters, the sum of
£l9 15s. 10d., and did afterwards feloniously-embezzle
the same, five months. James Parrington (26), being !it
servant to one' Henry Mills, did 'receive and take into
his possession, for and-on account of his said master, the
several sums of 135., is. 74-d:, and 3s. 3d., and did after-
ward feloniously embezzle part of the same, four months.
Ann FAlard (26), stealing one,metal tea-pot, four knives,
four forks, and other goods, the property of James
Nicholls, five months. David Morrison Clarke (33),
being a clerk to one Charles Frederick Carne, did
receive and take into his possession, for, and on behalf of
his said master, the several sums of £9 1.75, 241., £7
4s. 7d., and £ll 9s. 9d., and did afterwards feloniously
embezzle the same, five mouths. William Davies (19),
sailor, stealing two shirts, the property of Wm. Rowe,
six weeks. Elizabeth Slater (25), servant, stealing one
gold watch, the property of Ilielard Smith, one gold
watch and one gold chain, and other goods, -the property
of Hamlet, Terry, and two shawls, the property of Sarah
Ledger, five months. Susan M`Canb. (23) and Mary
. Power (25), stealing the sum of £l6, one purse, and
divers pieces of paper, the monies and property of John
Whitfield, from his person, three years. Catherine
Doyle (38), stealing one , mantle, the property of, David
Pugh Morgan and others, two months. Ann llorrocks
(47), stealing one pair of trousers, the property of John
Hoey, and one coat, one blanket, and one towel, the

I Oroperty of Charles Moore, three years-. <Top: qanii7
hell '(18); sailor,' and Michael 'Sweeney (10), `tailor,'
stealing one ciat, the property of David ,M‘CarthY.; the
former three months, and the latter six months. . Mary
Henry (40), stealing one pair of boots, the property of
Evan Thomas, four months.. ,John.-Peismore (47),
fainter, stealing one pair of boots, the property Ot,Edwq.
Jones and. a'nothers four months, John Jones (i 0),
charged With haVirig lifoken into and entered the'shop
of one Nl6liol4s an(/ ste'allmf therefrom ten
• lb s; wei'ght of bcOn' a'n'd fifty lb's.Vete.t Opt Mittel', the
',Property of th saiq N'fehoht's DOMMIIy, sip 5-06-srliyevai
servitude. .rohn.Viert;e e aling fhb, stfui
.the money of David 14ttes, and one the
property, of. Ilenry.Jones,, .three Months. Paich: ,W*plSh
-(19), labourer, stealing shirts, the, property of • John
Williams, nte, 7e4s, Ann
.I‘famee (29) and Mary
Healey (22), stealing Cne'stim £i 2, the ruoucy of
James Charles Pyc, from his person,.efryls GYe years.

CHESTER ASSIZES.

, .
The commission of !:,I& whiter assizes held at, Chester
was opened with the usual fo-,4lnalities on Thursday.
afternoon last, by Mr. Justice _Blackburn, Eti`dithe;buSi-.
ness of the assizes was commenced yesterday mornat.
The calendar contained the names of 62 prisoners ; 4
committed ou the charge of murder, 2 for manslaughter,
12 for burglary, 2 for concealment of birth, 2 for cutting
and wounding, 3 for forgery, 1 for, horse stealing, 3 for
ia/le, 1 for sheep stealing, 1 for uttering counterfeit :coin,
and 12 for rations other offences. The .following 'gen-
tlenielftere sworn on the ' . .
, • , .. .. GTiAND J PIN. • ' • • . .
The Right Hopi. Ii rte] Lutpag Edrl Grosvenor, M.P., foreman.
John polton .Case; tab- ' George CoiMltdll-Leghi Esq.'
David Re:imolds Dzlcs' Esq. The foil. Ars* I.ds&lles..
' The Hon. . W Egerton, M.P. w.iliiasd Todcl i
Neflor, .t 4.
l‘xvadoici Frost, Esq. . William 'Acid; h'sq..
'John ,Upton Gaskelt, EFq.- 1 .Tarns Wickstfdd Swan, Fsci.
Captain EdWard Volt Glegg. • Enoch Gibbon•Salisblit, -E•cri•‘
Rdbert 'Tenth,. Ehq.. .. John Trevor, msa.
Thbmas lioggins';'Esof. *, • , ' -t Wpaw Titherin ;ton,' Esq.
William Jackson, Esq., 31. P: f Satnuel Woodhouse, 14P
John Laird, ESq. -• • - I .Ftiil:lp Wliiteney;Esii• - •
• The usual proclamation against vice- dud immorality
having been read by the Clerk of Arraigns,
His Lordship. proceeded to address the grand jury.
He said 'he was sorry to say that upon the occasion of
these assizes they had a considerably greater quantity of
laboni: before thein ' than was usually the casein this
city. From what he could understand, they had at the
present assizes nearly as much as a, third more than on
any other occasion. He could not see the cause, On
looking at the calendar, for so great an increase of.
crime ; but he supposed it was one, of those occurrences
which they occasionally found took place in every
district. The offences, however; were of such a nature
that he did not think it necessary.to make any remarks
upon most of gran ; bsit there , were one or .two
observations which he, intended (0 offer npanithe
law in regard to some offences, in order to enable
them to find true bills. There were two' cases in
which the prisoners had been committed on the' capital
charge -of murder; one. was that of a man named
Howard, in which case he might remark that, if the
facts were really brought home 'to ,him, he was guilty
of having committed wilful murder; but it would be for
them to carefully consider whether the evidence was so
clear as,tojustify them in causing the man to be tried
for the serious charge by a petty jury. The other was a
charge against a man called Dignell, .and two.. women.
The question for their consideration in . that case would
be the difference between what constituted murder, and
what constituted manslaughter. As far as his informa-
tion went, which he' had obtained from the depositions
before the coroner,. there eras a great deal of matter in the
depositions which did not appear to have much to do
with the case, and therefore he could only make a eon-;
jeeture at what the' real facts were; but the case
would probably come before them in a much mote
intelligent ' manner. The" 'circumstances of the case
as they
.. had come before him were these :—The
unfortunate deceased had been in the company-, of the
female prisoner (Green), and, while in a certain street
in the town, suspected she had robbed him. He imme-
diately called out for the police,u—sedand
thseheamaidedbtyo
have summoned her friends to rescue her, : who; on;
coming up, had so , brutally ill-
kicking him on different parts of the body that he died.
The question for them to consider, was, whether this
was murder ; and it turned upon a nice distinction of
law. One of. the circumstances, ho might tell theme•
was, that when a person Was legally arrested if any
person came to rescue the prisoner while legally in
custody and caused the death of a party, then it consti-
tuted murder--; but if the prisoner was illegally in
*custody and persons came up and rescued him or her
the offence was mitigated down to manslaughter, unless
the party was shown to have evinced a determination to
commit murder. In the , present case the distinction
would be whether or. .not. -the man ' had actually
been robbed by the woman. In looking over the
depositions he could not find any evidence to show that
the man load really been robbed. ' He had certainly
called for the police to give her in custody on the, charge-
of robbery, but he was the only persbn who could prove
whether he had. been robbed or not, and was unfor-
tunately dead. Therefore, there appeared from that to
be a deficiency in the evidence to substantiate the charge
of murder ; but if they found, upon hearing the evidence
to be presented before them, that there was sufficient'
legal evidence to show that the man was robbed, then
it would be their duty to return a bill , upon . the graver
charge ; butif they. thought the evidence failed in . that
respect, or that he was not the man-who came up to
rescue the woman, Green, then it was only'the lesser
charge of manslaughter. Then as to the two . women,
they would have to consider whether they were guilty
of the charge of murder or manslaughter: The woes*
-Green, was-. beard to have , called for:, some of „her
friends to rescue her, and if they attempted -to 'eto so,'
and used such violence as caused the death or' the,
deceesed, then she was responsible' for what occurred
and would therefore be guilty of the 'capital charge.
The other woman, it appeared, came up after the actual
assault was committed, and struck him several times
over the 'face with her hand. If they thought she was
present when the actual assault was committed, 'then
she,would.also be guilty; but on looking at the evidence
it did not seem to him that she was present at the
actual assault, but came up 'after it Was over. If that
was the case, then it would be their duty to throw out
the bill against her for this offence. These were the
principle and heaviest charges in the calendar, but there
were two other 'of manslaughter which he would call
their attention to. There was 'a man of the name of
Oatfield, who was charged with the-manslaughter o£ his
partner, a man named Patrick Whelan. The circum-
stances of the case, so far as he wasinformed, were briefly
these : The deceased appeared to have been suffering
from disease of the brain.; but the prisoner was not
aware of the fact until after the 'occurrence which was
supposed to have decelerated his death. The deceased
and the prisoner. appeared to have had a quarrel,
and the latter struck him a blow, which no person at the
time considered to be of any consequence, but a day or
two afterwards the disease of the brain came to a greater
excess ; and the real question for their consideration was
whether the blow accelerated death, or whether -he -died
simply from disease, of the brain. , If they thought the
blow had accelerated his death,. then that wouldrolasti-
tute manslaughter. It was not a matter that_ought to
be loosely presumed against a, persbn—thq should be
satisfied, on looking at the evidence, that really and
truly a blow given like this accelerated death, before
they found a bill against him—if they were satisfied, then
'it bill ought to be found. There was another case -of
manslaughter, against a. man named Thomas, a bone-
setter or medical practitioner, not regularly trained in
the medical profession ; but being in practice as such,
the unfortunate deceased was brought to him suffering
from a disease, but the man thought he was suffering from
a fractured limb, and treated him accordingly; but
some abscess was found really to exist.. The boy died,
and he-ought to tell them' that it was not their.cluty to'
take into account the fact that the man was not a pgu-
larly trained medical practitioner. He knew that there
was a notion existing among medical men that -if a
man was not regularly trained as a doctor he had no
right, and was not able, to treat a case of Allis' descrip-
tion,
tion which was wrong, as he had a perfect right to do
so; but it would be their duty to see whether there was
a want of that reasonable care and skill, so that it
would not amount to culpable neglect. The man.ought
not to be harassed with a charge'of that 'kind unless
they were perfectly.satisfied with the evidence that would
be presented before them. . His Lordship then coin-
mented upon several other eases in the, calendar, after
which the grand jury were dismissed to their duties.
The trial of the prisoners was then proceeded with, but
were uninteresting. to the inhabitants of this district,
with the exception of the following :
EXTENSIVE FORGERIES BY A Boy, AT BIRKENHEAD.
—Henry Hinton (15), clerk, well instructed, was placed
in the deck, charged with forging and altering a post-
office money order, with intent to defraud her Majesty's
Postmaster-General at Birkenhead, on the 2nd of Sept.,
1860. Mr. Welsby, assisted by Mr. Vaughan Williams,
appeared to. prosecute; and Mr. M'lntyre defended the
prisoner. From the opening statement of the learned
counsel, and the evidence adduced, it would appear that
the prisoner was employed as a clerk in ,the money
,order
department at the Birkenhead Post-office, as paying
Icvl
eee rkk,. o n
Soont h e lasftthe r oefaAt
eurgi
nugs t
ulpa
as tn, aht a i
sa
situation,slar of 2t
h3s. per
epri -
soner had taken advantage of the confidence placed in
him, and committed forgeries to the extent of £5l 7s. 6d.
by altering the amount upon the money order, also upon
the advice sent from Oise forwarding post-office to the post-
master at Birkenhead,, and then at night by snaking out
a 'list to be forwarded to London, in which he purported
that he had paid parties who had presented orders to be
cashed a certain amount of money, which on being Com-
pared with . the list .forwarded by the offices who had
despatched money orders there; was found to he in-
correct. Au inquiry was immediately instituted, and,
the fraud was discovered... The indictment .upon which
the .prisoner was arraigned was for that he'did on the
25th of August forge a document for £1 upon a post-
office order for 10s. from Peter Hall, at Newton-inti se-
Willows, to John Cash, which he had altered to £1 10s.
The counsel for the defence submitted a legal
said
hinte,
which the judge not th hiking valid', , the counsel
would not address the jury after the evidence that
.had
placed before them, but proposed to call severali
witnesses as to character. He also spoke of the respec-
;
had
ability of the prisoner's parents, his father being the
- s 0
ltihbortaiglistn
it
tt
atteliefereesemlirbyratroy
ca:tIllB iNrvkietnnehsesteusl.
character. the fact of his holding such anappointsat
to T.
h ° ju(lpreviousjudge
being sufficient. The jury, after a short consultation,_
brought in a verdict of guilty. 'Sentence deferred until
to-day.
The case of Evan Thomas has hot yet been fixed for
hearing

NEW PATENTS.—The following patents have been
granted for :the week ending INternber 4th, 1860
George Catlin, of Manchester, " Improvement in the
construction of ships or other floAting bodies."—John
Leggett Budder, of London, " Improvements in the
application of steam, or highly rarifled gas, or other
aeriform fluid, to obtain, motive power for propelling,
and other • purposes." A communication to him from
abroad by :Woodford Pilkington, of Cape of Good Hope.
—Antonio Joaquim Pereira. de Carvallio, of London,
"Improvements in beams applicable in the. construction
of bridges and other structures, and also for the floors
and ceilings of houses."—Joseph Westwood, of London,
"Improvements in armour plates for iron ships and
vessels, or forts or batteries." James Campbell, of
London, " Improvements in apparatus for removing
sand or mud from the bottom of the sea, and of rivers,
docks, and harbours."—James Campbell, of London,
" A chambered floating dry: dock."-L—Thomas Barnett,
of Beverley; "Improvements in machinery for drying
grain, roots, and seeds, and for roasting coffee, cocoa,
chicory, malt, and other vegetable substances."—Caspar
"Improvements arrange=
Loewenstein, of London,
ments for paying mit submarine cables."—Communicated
from the British and-Foreign' Patent Offices, 4, Clayton-
square.