The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-07 00:00:00

MANSLAUGHTER AT LIVERPOOL.

Evan Hughes, 43, was charged with having at Liverpool
feloniously, wilfully, and unlawfully killed and slain Joseph
Royle.

On being called upon to plead, the prisoner said—" guilty
of pushing him, but not to kill him." The plea of guilty was
taken, and the prisoner was ordered to stand down. At a
later part of the day the prisoner was again placed at the
bar, when,

111 r. ASPINALL, who appeared on behalf of the prisoner,
said his lordship would perceive by the depositions, that in
the present case, the prisoner had applied to the deceased
for payment of a small debt, which had been owing for
some time, and that in a few hours after making this appli-
cation they met at a public house, and both being in a state
of intoxication, the prisoner, by a push, knocked the de-
ceased down. There were several extenuating circumstances
in the case. lie had several witnesses who would speak to
the character of the prisoner.
Mr. Roberts, joiner, was then called, and stated that the
prisoner had been in his employment for twenty years, and
during the whole of that time he had also found him an
honest and steady man.

Mr. Councillor: Picton was also present to speak in the
prisoner's favor, but his lordship said it was not necessary.
His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, remarked on the
peculiar circumstances under which the offence charged had
been committed. At the same time one could not but
lament that it had been the cause of. the death of a person
with whom the prisoner was acquainted. He (the •judge)
had no doubt the prisoner was sorry
.for what lie had done.
It showed very much how necessary it was for all of us to
keep our anger under. But taking into "consideration that
the prisoner had been provoked to do what he did, and
under the circumstances that the blow upon the deceased
was inflicted with the fist, the judgment of the court was
that he be imprisoned one week in solitary confinement.

BURGLARY AT BURY.
Josiah Ainsworth, .53, was charged with having at Bury,
on the 4th of September last, burglariouslv broken into and
entered the dwelling house of Mrs. Hine, 'Princess.street, in
Bury, and stolen therefrom one jacket, the property of

Ashton Hine, and one waistcoat, the property of Thomas
Gleeson. The facts of the case were briefly these. The
prisoner was formerly in the employment of the prosecutrix,
who ke4ps a beer-house in Bury. On the night of the 4th of
September they went to bed, leaving all as they thought
safe. On the following morning they discovered that the
house had been entered, and the stolen articles taken away.
A few days afterwards the waistcoat was found by Gleeson,
on the'prisoner's person, on which he was taken into custody.
On the prisoner's house being searched the coat was also
found there.

Evidence, as above, having been given, the prisoner was
found guilty and sentenced to twelve months' imprison-
ment with hard labour.

STABBING AT STRETFORD.

Tames Barlow, 26, was charged with having, at Stretford,
on Sunday, the 11th of September, feloniously stabbed and
wounded William Garner, with intent to do do him some
grievous bodily harm.
Mr OWENS appeared on behalf of the prosecution. The
prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor is a boatman,
and on the evening of the 11th of September he had come
with a boat, on the canal from Leigh to Stretford. On
arriving at Stretford, ho went into the Dog and Partridge
there to get some refreshment. lie ordered a pint of ale,
which was brought to him. The prisoner and several other
persons were in the room. Soon after the ale was brought
in, the prisoner took hold of it and poured a portion-of it into
his own mug, on which prosecutor complained, and they had
some words. Sometime afterwards the prisoner became
noisy, and was turned out of the house. The prosectitor
was standing near the house at the time, and the prisoner
ran up to him, and stabbed him. It was found that prose-
cutor was wounded in two places, and he was conveyed to
the Manchester infirmary.
Several witnesses were called in support of the prosecu-
tion, including the house surgeon of the Manchester infir-
mary, who deposed to the serious nature of the wounds the
prosecutor had received.
The prisoner was found guilty. Sentence deferred.
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT LIVERPOOL.

Jane Hickson, 17, John Clarke, 21, William Dirks,lB,
and ilfichael Flynn, 19, were charged with having, at Liver-
pool, on the evening of the 2nd of November, feloniously
assaulted Michael Malley, and violently stealing from his
person two half-crowns and other monies, and one hat, and
that immediately before, and at the time of the said rohbery,
they did feloniously strike and beat the said Michael Malley.
Mr. PRESTON prosecuted, and Mr. FOWLER defended the
prisoners Flynn and Wilkes. The other prisoners were un-
defended. The learned counsel for the prosecution stated
that the prosecutor, who is a pensioner, residing at Preston,
came over to Liverpool on the 2nd of November last, to see
a friend off to Ireland. Between eight and nine o'clock in
the evening, the prosecutor was walking along Great Howard-
street, when the female prisoner came up to him, and he
went ;with her out of Great Howard-street into Vulcan-
street. Almost as soon as he had got into Vulcan-street,
the three male prisoners rushed up to him. One of them
got hold of the prosecutor, whilst another—he believed
Clarke, seized him by the throat, and he was then knocked
down, and Wilkes kicked him in the eye. Flynn held him
down while the others still kicked and struck him, and in
this position lie cried out " murder," when all the prisoners
ran away. When the prlseentor recovered himself he found
that he had been robbed, and the female prisoner and Clarke
were taken into custody the earns evening. The prisoners
Flynn and Wilkes were arrested and taken into custody in the
police court the following morning.
In his examination, the prosecutor Malley swore distinctly
to the identity of all the prisoners.

Mr. Jacob.' Samuel, outfitter, 122, Great Howard-street,
stated that about eight o'clock in the evening he saw the fe-
male prisoner and four men standing, at the corner of Vul-
can-street. He passed them two or three times, and subse-
quently he saw the :prosecutor and the, female going down
Vulcan-street, the four men following them. He
then gave information to a police officer to keep his eye
upon them. Shortly.
,afterwards he heard a cry of "murder,"
and saw the female prisoner running up Vulcan-street. He
met her and gave her into the custody of a police officer.
The prisoner Clarke at that time came up to witness, and
said she was not the person who had committed - the
robbery, on. which Clarke was also taken into custody;
Mr. SOWLEIL addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners
Wilks and Flynn, contending that with regard to both pri-
soners the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution
had entirely failed to establish their identity.
The learned judge having summedup, the jury retired, and
after about half an hour's absence returned into court with a
'verdict of guilty against the prisoners Hickson, Clarke, and
Wilks, and acquitted Flynn.
Sentence deferred.
BIGAMY AT LIVERPOOL.

Mary Jane Wild, 52, a very respectable looking female,
was placed in the dock, charged with having, at Liverpool,
feloniously married James Marshall, her former husband,
Joseph Wild, being still alive.
Mr.'Simorr appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and Mr.
SOWLER defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the opening. statement of the learned.
counsel for the prosecution, that in the year 1837, the pri-,
soner, wno was then a widow, named Stray, was introduced
to the family of Mr. Joseph Wild, then residing at the Mat-'
lock baths. At; this period Mr. Wild's then wife was suf-
fering from indisposition ;_ and the prisoner attended upon
her during her illness, and up to the period of her death,
which took place in October, 1837. The prisoner remained
connected with Mr. Wild's family after the death of his,
wife, and in the following. October, of 1838, Mr. 'Wild mar-
ried the prisoner at the parish, church of Rotherham. For
some reason or other, which was not material to the present
trial, the prisoner had not lived with Mr. 'Wild for some
years past ; and it appeared that in the early part of the'
present year she became acquainted with a person named
James Marshall, residin. at Southport, whom she mar-
ried in July last. He 'the learned ,counsel) understood
that her only excuse was, that she had not heard from
her husband, Mr. Wild, for many years, and that
for anything she knew to the contrary, he was dead.
After some further remarks, the learned counsel called

John Whittle, one of the county constabulary force, who
stated that from instructions which he had received, he took
the prisoner into custody on the 18th of September last, at
a lodging house which she kept at Seaforth. On informing
her of the charge, on which he was taking her, she said that
it was twelve years since she had heard-of her husband, and
she also remarked to witness " has that Marshall put his
threat into execution ? If he has, lam glad of it, for I have
been tired of him for some time." The witness then
stated, that after taking the prisoner into custody, he pro-
ceeded to Rotherham, and obtained a certificate of the prisoner's
marriage at. the parish church there, in ,the year 1838, with
Mr. Joseph Wild. [The certificate was here put in].
Margaret Wild, a young woman, apparently about thirty
years of age, was the next witness examined. She said that
she was the daughter of Mr. Joseph Wild. Recollected the
prisoner being at her father's house during witness's mother's
illness. Her mother died -in October, 1837, and twelve
months afterwards her father was • married to the prisoner
at the parish church of Rotherham. They were then living
at Matlock baths. Sometime after the marriage they went
to reside at Sheffield. Remembered seeing the prisoner at
Matlock baths in 1843, when witness's seeing
was there.
Prisoner must have seen him on that occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr. SOWLER—Her father and the
prisoner had been separated for several years.
James Marshall, a man apparently about fifty-five years
of age, said that he became acquainted with the prisoner in
the earlier part of the present year, and on the 18th of July
last, they were married at St. Peter's parish church, Liver-
pool.
Cross-examined by Mr. SOWLER. —The prisoner did not
receive a letter after the marriage stating that her former
husband was still alive. Witness did. Prisoner told him
there was a letter, and on the 23rd of July he went to the
post-office, and received a letter to that effect. The letter
ut; TVA Th-s+ t.ll hor
after that there must be h mistake, as her former husband
was no doubt dead. Was not aware she had property when
ho married her. Never saw any. Prisoner did not tell him
that she had been married. Said she was a widow;

Mr. SOWLER then addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner, and said the only defence was that she believed
her former husband was dead, and that she was at liberty
to marry again. The fact was, that after her marriage with
Wild, he was very gay and went away from home continu-
ally for a long time, and she did not know anything about
him. At length she gave him up, not having seen or heard
of him for several years. Tho prisoner was a highly
respectable woman when she married Wild. She was first
married at eighteen years of age, in the year 'lBlB, and
had struggled hard, having had nine children by her first
husband.

The JUDGE : Nine stray children ! (Laughter.)
Mr. SOWLER : Yes, my lord.
The JUDGE : Well, I think she will perhaps like to go
back again to the Wild gentleman. Let her be imprisoned
for a week.
The court rose at six o'clock;

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.)
The learned judge took his seat in this court at ten
o'clock.

FORGERY AT MANCIIESTER.

Lancelot Rainforth, 43, remanded from the last assizes,
stood indicted with having, in the mouth of February last,
forged a bill of exchange for £5O. There was also a count
in the indictment, charging him with uttering the bill with
a guilty knowledge.
Mr. MONKS conducted the prosecution ; and Mr.
WIIEELER defended tho prisoner.
Mr. John Shayler, a silk manufacturer, of Manchester,
said—l have known the prisoner for ten or twelve years. He
was a dealer in silk-wares, and I have, during that period,
had considerable dealings with him, and in the month of
February he became indebted to me £5O. He gave me
bill for £5O, signed by Thomas Morris, and that was, on
becoming due, dishonoured. The bill was dated Feb. 25th,.
1853. I went to the village •of Tarvin to look for kr.
Thomas Morris, when I inquired if there was, or had been
such a person there, and the general answer I received was
that there was not, nor had there ever been, such a persOrt
there. After the bill had become due, I saw the prisomk,
and told him I must sue his accepted. He said he hoped I
would not, as he had been a very good customer to him,
and that he did not wish to disturb him, as he owed him