The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-03-27 00:00:00

oplicatiou being ma,

Ho also endeavoured to pie-

vent or delay the seachpg for the .'poti

and when the polic

came, and were endeavouring to put,put the flames, showea
Perfect apathy.. The prisoner's. familytonsisted.of his wife,
who had a • baby in aril,

three other child
I of avt

twelve years of age. a nephew, six
girl about fifteen years of age. . The first wiL
was the servant, who stated that on the • night in

ss examined

Was awakened by the prisoner, who told 'he;

fire in the shop, and directed her to
.iiee what

. - - -
not get up at once, because she was very sleepy, and fell asleep
again, but was a second time awakened by the prisoner. They
went down stairs together, and found that the s:lop was on fire.
Site looked through the glass door, and saw a fire near the
gas pipe. 'l'ne prisoner made no effort to ext nguish the fire,
but went and called his wife. When she awoke he remained
to help her to dress, and laced her stays. The eldest boy
asked would he go for the engines, and the prisoner replied no,
not unless the fire got worse. When he had laced his wife's.
stays •he went down, and then the fire had grown worse.
He told the Loy he might then go for the police.
Witness was of opinion that five or six buckets
of water would have extinguished the fire when first she
saw it. The night previous she was in the -shop before going
to bed, and all appeared to be right. On cross-examination,
she stated that she did not procure water to extinguish the fire
because She had the child to wind. She stated that she has
since been living iu care of the police. Police officer Lawton
deposed, that on the night in question, he saw through the
door of the prisoner's house that there was a fire inside. He
knocked, but received no answer. Another police officer
Game up, and.they broke open. the door. When they got into
the shop there was a great deal of smoke and a little fire near
toe window. Did not perceive ' any smell of gas. The fire
was extinguished by theta, in about ten minutes. Did not see
the prisoner all the time. Ascertained, subuquently, that the
prisoner's boy had been at the police station to call for assistance
to put out the fire. Another police officer, named Goodall,
deposed that he was at the police station when the boy came
to call for help to put out the fire, and that previous to that, or
subsequently, the prisoner did not come there at all. . Police
officer Warren, who was one of those who put
out the fire, .deposed that •he ,did not see the
prisoner until half an hour after the fire was totally
extinguished. Other police - officers were examined, wlio
gave evidence generally to the same effect. From the
evidence of one of them it appeared that the fire seemed to
have broken out in the gas piping, about a foot from the meter.
A number of witnesses were called to show that the prisoner
had increased his insurance from £7OO to £1,200; that hehad
several pressing claims upon him at the time; and that the
fire could not have originated in an escape or explosion of gas.
Mr. Seagar, who defended the prisoner, addressed the jury at
some length, commenting on what he urged to be defects and
inconsistencies in the evidence. His lordship summed up at
some length, and in the course of his remarks observed that it
would have been better, and have prevented observation or
suspicion of any kind, if tho servant girl, who was the first
witness, had not been in the custody of the police since the
fire took place. The jury, without retiring froni the box,
found 'a verdict of not guilty.

CUTTING AND WoUNDING.—John Cawfield, aged 20,
labourer, was charged with having, on the 9th December last,
at Prescot,i maliciously and feloniously cut, stabbed; and
wounded John Leather. Mr. Aspinall prosecuted. It apPeared
that on the eight in question, which was the night of Sunday,
the prosecutor, who is a watchmaker in Prescot, was in a beer
house there about half past nine o'clock. The prisoner was
there with another man. Some words arose
between the latter parties, and one of them went
out of the house. The prosecutor stated that
he took no part whatever in the quarrel, Which had some
reference to a quart of ale. He heard some words, subse-
quently, between the prisoner and the landlord about the ale.
The prisoner went out before prosecutor, and when th 3 latter
came into the street the prisoner struck him on the breast with
some sharp instrument, N; jell stabbed him. The prosecutor
mined round to defend himself, and the prisoner stabbed him
a second time, upon the hip. The prosecutor went at once to
the police station, and subsequently to tho docters. A witness
named Rose, the man already referred to as having been
rinking with the prisoner, deposed that a scuttle took place,
in the first instance, between the prisoner and himself, and
that when the prosecutor came out the prisoner attacked him.
A slight scuffle then took place, after which the witness saw
that the prosecutor had been stabbed. The shirt, trousers, and
coat which the prosecutor Wore on the night in question were
produced by a police-officer, and shown to be pierced in the
places where the prosecutor stated that he had been stabbed,
and the shirt was covered with blood. The surgeon, who
examined the prosecutor, deposed that the wounds which he
had were produced by the stab of a sharp instrument. Mr.
M'Donniell, who defended the prisoner, addressed the jury.
upon his behalf, and contended that the prisoner
was attacked in the first instance by the prosecutor, and
the witness Rose, and that finding himself overpowered, and
actually believing that his life was in danger. and being more-
over heated by passion and drink, he used the knife hastily in
his own defence, but not with any deliberate intention to do
any grievous bodily harm. The jury found the prisoner guilty
of unlawfully wounding, but not with any felonious intent. His
lordship sentenced the prisoner to fifteen months imprisonment
with hard lebour.

BIIRGLARY.--JOSCph Ardrey, aged 37, hawker, was charged
with having, on the night of the 3rd January, 1856, feloniously
and burglariousiy Froken into and entered the dwelling house
of Henryfrieenlialgli, and stolen forty gold rings, forty brooches,
forty seals,f,and various other articles of jewellery, value £9O.
It appeared that the prosecutor is a jeweller, .residing in Oxford
street, Manchester. On the night in question he saw that all
Was right before going to bed, and the following morning
.he
found the shop had been broken into, and the property
mentioned stolen. Ten days after the prisoner offered some
ringi and seals for sale, to a pawnbroker named Yates,
in Bolton, whirls the latter purchased ; and the subsequent
day he brought some more of the same kind to
Yates, of which the latter purchased some. In
consequence of something lie had heard, Yates went
over to Manchester, and delivered up the articles to an
inspector of police. The witness, Yates, stated that he had
dealings with the prisoner before. Another witness, named
Bromley, deposed' that the prisoner conic to him on two
occasions, and sold him jewellery of the same description,
which witness afterwards handed over to the police in Man-
chester. This witness had also known the prisoner before, and
had dealings with him. A witness, named Bradshaw, alski a
pawnbroker in Bolton, deposed to having bought some articles
of jewellery from the prisoner, at the same time, which he
also subsequently gave up to the police. Police-inspector
Maybury deposed, that on the night of the 20th of January,
he went to the house of the prisoner, and told the latter that
the shop of Mr. Greenhalgh had been robbed of a large
quantity of jewellery, and that he (the prisoner) had sold
some of that jewellery to Mr. Yates. P'isoner said that could
not be, for lie had had it more than twelve months. Another
police-officer deposed, that on searching the house he found
some rings, one of which was in the, pocket of the prisoners
wife's dress. The prosecutor, on being re-called, and on being
shewn the seveeal articles of jewellery sold by the prisoner,
and those found in his house, identified the greater number of
them as being his property, and having been stolen from his
shop on the night in question. Mr. Wheeler defended the
prisoner. The jury found him guilty of receiving the property,
knowing the same to have been stolen.
CHARGE or MANSLAUGHTER.—Bridget Archer was put
in the dock, charged with thaving at Manchester killed
William Archer, and John Archer. The prisoner was charged
upon a coroner's warrant. Mr. Wheeler said, as the grand
jury had ignored the bill, it was not the intention of the
Crown to offer any evidence. A verdict of not guilty was
accordingly returned.

CHARD P. op "814.,t3 !Y.—Margaret Midgley, 38, a poor but
cleanly clad woman, who was,out on bail; surrendered to take
her trial °Eta charge of having at Oldham, on the 9d February,
this year, married Joseph J. Sherwood, of that place, her
first husband, John Midgeley, being then alive. It appeared
that her maiden name was Williamson, and that she was
Married to Midgeley in 1840. On the occasion of her second
marriage she described herself as a widow, and

gave the name of Barber. In extenuation of her
offence she pleaded that she had been married •
at the age of seventeen, and that she and Midgcley had never
lived togeth.er ; nor during the long interval of their separation
had he allowed her anything for her maintenance. Joseph
Isherwood, the second husband, entered the box, and stated
that he had known the prisoner for seventeen years, and that
there could not be found a better conducted, or more indus-
trious, woman than she was. When he first became acquainted
with her she was in great distress, almost starving, and
although her first husband, who was living with another
woman, knew of her Condition ho never had the feeling to
proffer her the least assistance. " And I tell you what, my
lord," said Isherwood, in conclusion, speaking with an honest
manliness which guaranteed the truth of his statement, " she
is the best woman I ever met, and he is the worst man." His
• Lordship expressed a very strong opinion on the harshness of