The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-03-27 00:00:00

DIABOLICAL ATTEMPT TO MURDER.

At the assizes held at Warwick. on Tuesday, Eliz Lbeth
M.Manning was charged with attempting to murder Sarah,
the wife of Joseph Callow, manufacturer, at Stoke, near
Coventry. About ten o'clock one morning 'Mr. Callow left
his house to go to Coventry, leaving Mrs. Callow and
Elizabeth M`Manning in the house. The latter went to
the stable, got the key of the front gate, and having locked
the gate, went up stairs, and was assisting her mistress to
dress. Without any provocation she suddenly struck her
mistress a violent blow on the bead with some heavy instru.
ment, which, as she let it fall, her mistress discovered to
to be a 71b weight. She then got the poker, and struck
Mre. Callow in the mouth, bi.eaking two of her teeth. She
next forced the end of a boot into her mouth and tried
to tear out her tongue. Then she beat her head violently
against the wall. Mrs. Callow offered her a hundred
pounds if she would let her go ; but M•Manning declared
that she would murder her, and continued to ill treat her
in a similar manner for about two hours, when Mr. Callow
returned from Coventry. While this was going on, Gaffey
the man from whom she had procured the key of the gate.
had beard his mistress cry out, and came to the house, 'out:
the prisoner would not let him enter, telling him
'that her
mistress had a fit. Gaffey then went to Coventry and
fetched his master. On reaching his I.lP;use, Mr. Callow
found the doors locked, and was not admitted by the pri-
soner till he had threatened to break in the front door.
On his entering he found the prisoner covered with blood.
herH e r s
oe
ue sleeves rws ere
sturned
told uhpi ,m and
that
her
two hairm
e hangingn iv e
re e
p stainabout
murdering hie mistress. On going up stairs he fouul his
wife also covered with blood, and bearing marks of the
treatment she had received. Mr: Spooner, for the defence,
Suggested that there had been a quarrel between the prisoner
and her mistress, and that the former had acted in self-
defence. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty of attempt
to murder." Mr. Justice Wightman, in passing sentence, said
this was one of those crimes which by the law still
remained capital. He ordered sentence of death to be
recorded, observing that it would be commuted to transpor-
tation for life.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. S. Wortley, is gradually
recovering from the brain fever, and has, for some days
past, been considered out of danger.
The First Chamber has unanimously voted, and the
Second carried, by a majority of 25, the law abolishing
the Civic Guard, instituted in Hanover in 1843,

LIVERPOOL BANKRUPTCY COURT.

BEFORE Ma. COMMISSIONER STEVENSON.

In re 11` LARTY & CO.—ln this case two balance sheets
have been filed, one by Mr. I.l‘Larty, and the other by
Mr. Lamont and Mr. M'Kean, the other two partners.
Each pally insists on the correctness of his balance sheet,
and refuses to sign the other. His Honour asked if it
could not bs ascertained in wha' particular the difference
between the partners lay, so that Mr. M'Larty might he
able to sign the other balance sheet with a qualification ?
Mt. E. Banner, who appeared for Mr. Lamont, said, that
that had been proposed to Mr. M'Larty, and that he
declined to do so. His Honour : The court must hold
that he must either sign or not pass Mr Banner : The
real bone of contention between the partners is this—the
father of Mr. M'Larty and his brother-in-law are by two
of the bankrupts brought in debtors to the concern, in so
far as they are considered to be part owners or interested
in the ship Cleopatra, upon which there were very
serious lasses, and therefore the father and brother-in-
law of Mr. M'Larty are debited with their proportion of
the loss, Mr. M'Larty maintains, whether rightly or
wrongly I will not say, that his father is not liable for any
loss upon that ship, and he positively refuses to
sign any balance sheet, in which his father is introduced
as a debtor. His Honour :• Then, is it not a legal con-
struction whether he is liable or not ? 'Would Mr.
M'Larty refuse to sign the balance sheet, with a qualifi-
cation so as not to bind himself to that point Mr.
M'Larty (whose solicitor was unfortunately absent, being
out of town) replied that he refused.to sign the other
balance sheet, not only because of the circumstance
mentioned by Mr. Banner, but alga because it was in many
other respects incorrect. Mr. M'Larty then, with the
permission of the court, read a statement which he had
drawn up in justification of his refusal to sign the
balance sheet in questi an. He denied that he was
improperly preventing his father from being debited, as
stated by Mr. Banner, inasmuch as ha was prepared to
prove that his father was never an owner of the ship.
At first there were several owners in the ship, up to the
full amount, but in consequenceof some of them falling off,
they (the bankrupts) were placed in a difficulty. His father
then became security for them to the builder, but,
though his name wfs put on the ship's register as a
security to him, he was never an owner, and he always
disowned being such. When the ship was about to be
sold, his father refused to part with the shares which lie
held, as security, unless he was cleared from all liabilities
as between them, and a letter to that effect was accord..
ingly given to him. Mr. John Yates (who appeared
for Mr. M'Kean) : By whom was that letter
given to your father ? Mr. M'Larty : By myself
but it was signed by Mr. Lamont and myself. Mr.
Banner : We want that letter. His Honour : In whose
possession is it ? Mr. M'Larty : I suppose in the pos-
session of my father's solicitor. It is also in the private
letter book of the firm. Mr. Lamont : But not signed
by me. Mr. M'Larty suggested that Mr. Lamont and
Mr. M'Kean should sign his balance sheet with a qualifi-
cation, and so end the difficulty. Mr. Banner and Mr.
Yates then urged that the refusal of Mr. M'Larty to sign
the balance sheet should not prevent Mr. Lamont and Mr.
M'Kean passing, provided their balance sheet was found
correct. His Honour replied that it would not. After
some consideration, his Honour decided on taking the
balance sheets as having been filed, but adjourned the
case to the 16th April to examine the balance sheets. (on
which Mr. Turner, the official assignee, will report) and
to see on what points the partners differ, and whether they
justify the refusal to sign a joint balance sheet by Mr.
M'Larty.