The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-17 00:00:00

SHOCKING CASE OF STABBING

Shortly after midnight on Sunday, a young man named
William Shaw, a coal miner, residing at Thornton, near
Bradford, was stabbed in a fearful manner by Edward
Clough, a man in similar circumstances of life. It appears
that Shaw was courting a young widow in his neighbour-
hood, and went to her house on Sunday night, remained there
until between twelve and one, and then left. At this moment
he met with Edward Clough, who was in a state of inebri-
ation, and some words passed between them respecting the
young woman. The quarrel resulted in the two men wrest-
ling together, and eventually Clough managed to get Shaw's
head down between his legs ; while in this position, Shaw
was held down with the left band, and Clough, with a knife
held in the right hand, inflicted three dreadful gashes in
the body of his opponent. One plunge of the knife caused
a dangerous wound in the chest, the lungs being visible
between the ribs, and through the orifices of the two other
gashes, in the abdomen, the intestines protruded. The father
of Shaw waited for his son until between one and two o'clock,
and then finding that he did not come home, repaired to the
spot where he, had been told the young man had been left lying.
It was a bright moonlight night, and, on removing the hay,
he was horrified on beholding the pallid features of his son,
who lay deluged in blood, and apparently dying. The father
implored his son to pray for mercy and forgiveness, and ran
for aid. The wounded man was conveyed home, and attended
during the whole night by Mr. Hill, surgeon, who, on seeing
the very serious nature of the injuries and the apparent
hopelessness of the wounded man's recovery, had Clough
apprehended by one of the district constables. Shaw is
twenty-six years of age. lie was sensible at an early hour
on Monday morning, and was enabled to give Mr. Hill the
name of his probable murderer. Clough is apparently
about the same age, with light hair, and a cadaverous
countenance. On Monday, at the West Riding Court,
Bradford, the prisoner Clough was brought before W.
Walker, Esq., W. Horsfall, Esq., and J. Hollings, Esq.
It was stated to the court that Shaw was in an extremely
dangerous condition, and the magistrates, after arranging
for the deposition of the wounded man being taken, in
anticipation of his d.ath, formally remanded Clough,
until Thursday.—Leeds Mercury.

TEE WELLINGTON COLLEGE.—.A. committee of the
governors of Wellington college met cn Monday in the
Palace of Westminster, for the purpose of making arrange-
ments for the ceremony of laying the first stone of this
college. by the Queen, on the 3rd of May. Present—The
Earl of Derby, the Rev. G. R. Gleig, Mr. Cox, and Mr.
Chance, secretary.

GREAT FIRE IN LONDON.—On Monday afternoon,between
the hours of twelve and one o'clock, a most destructive
fire broke out on the extensive premises of Mr. Samuel
Clarke, wax and tallow chandler, No. 55, Albany-street,
Regent's Park. The fire broke out in the rear of the
premises, but the flames spread with such amazing
rapidity, owing to the high wind, that it was found
impossible to remove auy of the tallow, of which there
was some hundred tons. The engines from the Albany-
street barracks instantly turned out, and were most
powerfully manned by the Blues, and got to work, under
the' command of Colonel Williams and Colonel Ogleby,
but: without making the. least impression on the fire.
The scene at this period was one of fearful grandeur.
The firemen kept to their work in an admirable manner,
but the work of devastation continued, and the premises
were entirely burnt to the ground, as well as the adjoining
premises of Messrs. J. J. Bell and Co., and Mr. John
Francis, the eminent sculptor, injured by fire and water.
Great praise is due to the very efficient manner in which
the military and police discharged their duties. Cause
and Insurance unknown.

COUNTY
COURT.--YESTERDAY,

(BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ., JUDGE.)
APPIII.LLIMORE V. LOWNDES.--This was an action
brought by Mr. M‘Phillimore, of Bath-street, publican,
against defendant, also a publican, residing in Great
Crosshall-street, to recover a sum of £9. Mr. Ilime
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Campbell for the
defendant. The amount in dispute was part of a sum
of £2l alleged to be due for portion of a stock of the
plaintiff's taken by defendant, under a valuation, for
spirits and cordials supplied to defendant, and money
lent to him by plaintiff. £l2 had been paid out of the
whole amount. It appeared that defendant had taken a
house in Great Crosshall-street, where plaintiff pre-
viously carried on his business, and defendant agreed
to take some of the plaintiff's stock, which was remaining,
for £lO. The remainder of the amount was alleged to
be due for spirits and cordials supplied, and money lent,
and the evidence exhibited one of the most remarkable
instances of directly contradictory swearing which could
ever have come before the court. The plaintiff, Mr.
M'Phillimore, and his brother, deposed positively that
certain quantities of spirits and cordials were supplied
by them to the defendant's son, a boy apparently
fifteen years of age. This boy had been for some time in
the employment of Mr. M'Phillitnore, and was taken
away from his employment, when the defendant opened
the house in Great Crosshall-street. The plaintiff
deposed that the defendant's daughter came to him on
one occasion, and told him that her father had had
£2 10s saved up in coppers, which he kept concealed in
a manger attached to the stables of Messrs. Bonen,
brewers, by whom he was employed as drayman, and
that this money had been stolen from him. She, there-
fore, begged the plaintiff to lend her £2 10s. She came
three times during that day, crying, and at last he de-
posed that he lent her the money. The first witnesses
called for the plaintiff, were the son and daughter of the
defendant. The son distinctly denied that he ever
received any spirits or cordials from plaintiff or plaintiff's
brother for his father. He stated that after his father
opened the publichouse, be was taken away from Mr.
M'Phillimore's employment, and put to Holycross
schools, and that he never subsequently went with any
message to Mr. M'Phillimore's. The daughter, a
grown young woman, denied that she had ever
borrowed any money from the plaintiff, under
any circumstances, and stated that she never either
told to any one, or had heard herself, a word of the story
about her father losing the money in the stable. She
said the only occasion ever she went to Mr. M'Phillimore
about money, was one day, the date of which she could
not remember, when she called on him twice for £3
which Mr. M'Phillimore owed her father, and then Mr.
M'Phillimore did. not pay her the money. She was
cross-examined by Mr. Hime, and closely questioned by
the judge, but she persisted in the same statement. His
Honour said he had no alternative that day but to direct
a nonsuit. The plaiuiiff had called witnesses who con-
tradicted his own case. It was true they were witnesses
from the enemy's camp, as the phrase ordinarily was,
that was to say, the son and daughter of the defendant,
but still they were the plaintiff's witnesses, and very
young, both of them. He could not affix a charge of
perjury to them without some further investigation. He
should, therefore, leave the matter open for enquiry
hereafter if any other evidence could be produced. It
was a very wicked case on one side or the other. It was
a very shocking case to have to try, for there was un-
questionably deliberate perjury on the part
either of Mr. M'Phillimore or of these two
children. He saw no possibility of any other conclusion,
certainly as regarded that portion of the case involved in
the evidence of the daughter, and he was bound to
remember that the girl was the plaintiff's witness, and
as her evidence had been given so strongly, he was not
at liberty to reject it. He purposely gave a nonsuit in-
stead of a verdict, because if the case came on again, as
it probably would, with additional evidence, he should
have to determine very carefully on which side the truth
lay. If the case came on again, he should direct it to
be tried by a jury, and he should take care that one or
other of the parties should be sent to be tried at the
assizes for perjury, for a more wicked and shocking case
on one side or the other it never had been his misfortune
to try. At present he did not say anything to prejudice
either side, but merely declared that as the case stood,
he could not give a verdict for the plaintiff that day, and
therefore directed a nonsuit.