The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-10-13 00:00:00

ATTEMPT AT MURDER IN LIVERPOOL

On Saturday night. a fearful attempt at murder of two
persons was made in Tarleton-street. From what we
could collect, in the pres'nt confused state of the affair,
it appears that a man, named Thomas Willetts, a barber,
made a desperate attempt to murder his wife, and a man
named William Fletcher. How the quarrel originated
is not stated, but it would seem that the man Willett's
had, for some time past, entertained notions that his wife
was not conducting herself properly, and it is stated that
he considered the man guilty of impropriety with his
wife. This feeling, of course, caused great uneasiness,
and it appeared that, on Saturday night, the unfortunate
man got almost delirious with drink, and whilst in this
state (although not booked for being drunk,) he made
the attempt on the Hies of the individuals, by cutting
their throats with a razor. He cut his wife fearfully
about the chest, and the man about the neck. An alarm
was at once raised, and, after a struggle, the prisoner
was secured and lodged in the main bridewell. He will
be brought up before the magistrates this day at the
Police Court. The wounded persons were attended to,
and are, we have heard, going on favourably. The whole
details will transpire at the examination of the prisoner
, this morning.

BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT,-.-SATURDAY

(BEFORE J. W. HARDEN, ESQ., JUDGE.)

THE WAPENTAKE COURT.—In a case of Norman V
Bushell, Mr. Bretherton applied for a rule nisi to set
aside the judgment of the Wapentake Court of the
Hundred of Wirral', with costs, on the ground of
irregularity. Mr. Blackhurst opposed the application.
After considerable legal disoussion had taken place, his
Honour said he would take time to consider his
judgment.
DETENTION BY A RAILWAY. WILLIAMS V
BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, AND CHESHIRE JUNCTION
RAILWAY COMPANY.—In this case the plaintiff, William
Williams, sought to recover damages from the above-
named company, caused by detention beyond the time
issued for the arrival of a train. Mr. Bretherton appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Neville far the company. The
plaintiff's case was, that, on the 14th July, he took tickets
for himself and his wife, at the Monks' Ferry station, for
Chester, by the one o'clock train. He stated, that he
went by that train in consequence of having seen a bill
posted at the station, which announced that it would
arrive in Chester in time to meet the Crewe and Holy-
head train, which arrived at the Chester station at ten
minutes past two. The train, however, did not arrive at
Chester until twenty minutes past two, after the Crewe
and Holyhead train had left. The plaintiff was
going to the Calveley station, on the Crewe
line, and as he had lost the Crewe train, and his wife
was in such delicate health that he feared to keep
her waiting at the Chester station until late in the
evening, when the next train went, he took a convey-

ante and went on to Calveley, sixteen miles distant.
He was not able to get back that night, as the place to
which he was going was two or three miles beyond
Calveley. He, therefore, claimed his expenses for the
night, &c., as well as the hire of the conveyance—in all,
£2 7s. On the part of the defence, the plaintiff was
cross-examined with a view to show that he was mistaken
as to the time-bill he alleged he had seen, but he remained
firm to his original statement. He was asked if he would
swear that he had not gone across from the landing-
stage by the Monks' ferry-boat ; but he stated that he
went by the Woodside boat, and was at the station some
time before the train started. Mr. Neville said this
statement took him by surprise, as his defence principally
rested upon the allegation that the plaintiff crossed by
the Monks, ferry-boat. He would have been prepared to
show that that boat was ten minutes late, and that the
train was detained for it in order to accommodate the
public. The company, therefore, would not be account-
able for the delay to those who came by that boat. His
Honour asked if the boat was not part of the railway
accommodation ? Mr. Neville said the railway company
had nothing to do with the boat, which belonged to the
Birkenhead Commissioners. The company only booked
from Birkenhead, not from the Lancashire side of the river.
His Honour : But they sometimes take ticketsop board the
boat ? Mr. Neville said that was merely an arrangement
for the accommodation of the public ; and if the question
had arisen in that case, he could have shown that tickets
were not taken on board that boat. Mr. Neville then
applied himself to the amount of damage, contending
that there was no occasion for plaintiff to have hired
another conveyance, as there was a train leaving for
Calveley shortly after six o'clock, and also, that plain-
tiff could have got back the same night by a train leav•
ing Crewe at twenty minutes past seven, and stopping
at Calveley. His Honour gave a verdict for the plaintiff
for £2.