The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-08-16 00:00:00

NORTHERN TIMES.---LIVERPOOL, SATURDAY

none. As to the oal traffic, the directors were of opinion
that it was the most profitable trade—paying better even
then the express pas,emser trains ; and that opinion was
shared in by the Great Northern Company, which took
them at a lower rate than they did. As to the remarks of
the hon. member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), he was
wrong in saying that the stiggestions of the Committee of
Investigation had not been attended to. A Goods Com-
mittee had been appointed in accordance with them, but
t're result of their labours could not be seen at once.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Pitt, M.P., endorsed the views of the Chairman,
and urged that their misfortunes might be traced to the
act that they had been compelled to fight the battle of
the guages. If the guage all through England had been
the same, they would have witnessed none of those evils
which they hal now to deplore, nor would they have
suffered from that r.:ckless competition and mischievous
and factious rivalry which had been forced on them.
There was another circumstance from which they suffered,
but in a less degree, and he mentioned it from the fact
that it alone could be redressed by public opinion being
brought to bear on it. The act known as,Lord Campbell's
act, giving compensation in cases of accident, was a just
and wise law, bit he could not say the same of the manner
in which it was carried out. From the reports of such cases
in the papers, he was surprised at the decisions arrived
at, frequently by special arid nearly always by common
juries, contrary oftentimes to the opinion of judges, and
he could only account for them by supposing what, per-
haps, was near the truth, that railway companies were
looked upon as fit bodies to be plundered. (Hear, hear.)
They were also unfairly assessed by vestries, but as these
were grievances which could only be redressed in the
manner he before pointed out—by the force of public
opinion—he trusted that the public would soon see that it
was for their own interest that it should be fairly dealt
with, and would so act towards then. As to the
remarks of Mr. Hadfield, he thought they were premature.
The fruit of the labours of the Committee of Investigation
could not!so soon be seen, and for his own part, he felt
bound to speak in terms of commendation of the report
which had been presented for their approval. He differed
with the chairman in one particular. He thought it a
wise course to circulate the report before the meeting, and
he trusted it would continue to be done. (Hear, hear.)
The report was then adopted mem. con.

A dividend of five per cent per annum, payable on the
19th of August, was thclared, and other formal resolutions
adopted.
It was announced that, in consequence of the works now
going on, the balance on the £2O Manchester and Bir-
mingham share, and the £lO C. shares would be called up,
to be payable on the Ist of December.
Thanks were voted to the chairman and directors, after
which the meeting separated.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.-

-YESTERDAY

CROWN COURT.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES.

UNNATURAL OFFENCE.—James Harrison, aged 19, a
butcher, was charged with having committed an unnatural
offence, at Walton on the Hill, on the 28th April last. The
prisoner was in the employ of Mr. Lacey, a provision dealer, of
that township. who, on the night in question, witnessed such
conduct, that he gave him into the custody of the police on the
following morning. For the defence, it was urged that the
ch-trge had been trumped up by the prosecutor in a fit of
jealousy. Before the case was completed, his lordship directed
the attentoin of the jury to a certain portion of the evidence,
upon which the jury, at the suggestion of his lordship, returned
a verdict of acquittal.
FRIGHTFUL CHARGE OF RAPE. AT MANCHESTER.
Peter Donohoe, aged 21, striker, James M'Guire, aged 28,
striker, Deorge M'Clarence, aged 18, a bobbin turner, John
Brady, aged 24, a cabinet maker, and Samuel Falkner,
aged 18, a moulder, stood indicted with having, on the 9th
of June last, ravished Mrs. Ellen Wilkinson. In this case
the prosecutrix, was a middle aged female, the mother of one
child, who had been deserted by her husband, and by her
industry had maintained herself for the last ten years, had been
visiting at the house of a friend, Miss Grimes, on the night in
question. Shortly after twelve o'clock they left the house, and
went to a pie shop, where she purchased a pie. They then
separated, each to retu'n to their respective homes. The
prosecutrix sat down on the step of a door, in Scott street,
for the purpose of eating the pie, but had not been there
long before six men came up to her. The prisoner Donohoe
was the first who caught hold of her, and the prisoner
Brady grippped her by the arm. The six then carried her up
the brow into Shepley's yard, where they threw her down,
and to her certain knowledge Donohoe and Brady committed
the offence complained of. Others did the same, but she
become insen,ible, and did not know exactly what followed.
After that they carried her into another yard, where they
stripped her of all her clothing, and then pushed her into a
privy. She was found shortly after in a state of insensibility,
and was conveyed to the police office, but did not recover
from the shock she had received until the following day.
At the time the prosecutrix was attacked by the prisoners,
she had had a glass of ale and a glass of rum. She
had endeavoured to give an alarm, but a hand was kept over
her mouth to prevent her eo doing. Several witnesses were
called, who spoke to the facts as narrated by the prosecutrix,
one of whom had witnessed the committal of the offence
by
.the prisoners, but was so much afraid that she dare not
give the alarm, ar.d identified all the prisoners as taking a
part in the committal of the offence. The articles of
clothing taken from the prosecutrix were found in the posses-
sion of the prisoner Donohoe, and the ring taken from her
finger was found immediately after in M'Guire's pocket. A
surgeon was also called, who stated that he believed that the
prosecutrix had undergone some very rough treatment, but his
opinion was that she had been in a state of intoxication at the
time the offence was committed. The several counsel for the
respective prisoners addressed the jury Lt considerable length,
arguing that the imputed offence had not been committed, as
the prosecutrix was drunk at the time, and was an assenting
party. Besides, they also contended, that the evidence of
identity was not sufficient, resting almost on the unsupported
testimony of the prosecutrix to trace it to the prisoners. His
Lordship summed up the evidence, explaining the point of law
involved in the motion, and the jury returned a verdict of
acquittal against Faulkner, and guilty against the other four.
M`Guire and Donohoe, who had each been previously convicted
of a similar offence, were sentenced to six years' penal servi-
tude, Brady to four years' ditto, and M'Clarence to six months
imprisonment. _ . .

ASSAULT UPJN A CHILD AT WEST DERBY.—Michael
Nolan, aged 19, a labourer, was charged with having committed
a violent assault upon a child, named Mary Oldcock, under ten
years of age. The jury acquitted the prisoner of the capital
offence, but found him guilty of the attempt, for which he was
sentenced to two yews' imprisonment with hard labour.
CRIMINAL ASSAULT ON A CHlLD.—Joseph Silcock, aged
43, a chairmaker, stood charged with having, at LAwton,
assaulted Elizabeth Eddlestone, on the 25th of April last.
Guilty.—Two years' imprisonment with hard labour.

CAAROE OF CHIL,) MURDER AT WARRINGTON.—Mary
Stringer, aged 42, stood charged with having caused the death
of a child named William Baker, by administering to it a large
quantity of lodanum. In this case it appeared that the
prisoner was the aunt to the deceased child, who was about ten
weeks' old. On the day in question the prisoner went to see
the mother of the child, who, shortly after, left the child
under her care. The prisoner was told to get the child to sleep
On her return site found the child on the prisoner's hp, and a
cup and spoon on the table. The mother asked her
what she had been giving the child, and on being
told it was spirits of poppies, the mother said she
should not have done so. The child was soon after taken very
ill, and died a few days after. The prisoner afterwards
admitted that she had given the child some of the lodanum
she had purchased for her mother, and expressed great regret
at the result, as she was very fond of the child. The prisoner
was found guilty of manslaughter. His Lordship strongly
reprobated the conduct of drugging children, and, as a caution
to others, sentenced the prisoner to one week's imprisonment.
MANSLAUGHTER AT ST. HELENS.—Richard Harrison,
aged 24, a glass cutter, was indicted for having caused the
death of James M‘Guines, at St. Helena, on the 9th of May
last. The prisoner and the deceased were employed in the St.
Helens plate glass works. On the day in question a dispute
arose between the parties, after which they got to fighting, and
in the course of the conflict which ensued, the blow which
caused the death of the deceased was struck. The jury acquitted
the prisoner.

MANSLAUGHTER IN LIVERPOOL.—Susan Donlan, aged 62,
was charged with having caused the death of James Conner, a
rigger, on the 30th of May last. The deceased lodged with
the prisoner. On the day in question, he wont home in a
state of intoxication, when the prisoner pushed him from the
door, upon which he fell from the step, and died soon after.
The prisoner was acquitted.
MANSLAUGHTER ON BOARD A SHlP.—James Powers,
aged 2G, a seaman, was charged with having caused the death
of another seaman, on board a vessel, on the 27th of March
last. In this case, the prisoner was seen to kick the deceased
on the head several times, so muell so that he was rendered
incapable of performing any duty. On the vessel arriving in
Liverpool, the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he
soon after expired from the injuries he had received. Guilty.
Twelve months imprisonment with hard labour.
The court then adjourned nntil nine o'clock this morning:

the best thing he could do was to break off the
match. He begged the jury not to ask themselves
whether, under the circumstances, the breaking off the
match was the best thing he could do, but to put the question
to themselves, to what amount of damages was the young
lady entitled to when this promise was made and then broken.
She had lost the advantages which he had held out to her,
and she had lost what to her was of far greater importance, the
company, the society, and the consolation which a marriage
could afford. When it was discovered that the defendant was
paying his addresses to another young laby, he did not deny
that he had acted like a villain to the plaintiff, but wsote to her
a letter, in which he begged that she would forgive him, and
not seek to punish him by law. The learned sergeant con-
cluded by calling on the jury to award such damages to the
plaintiff as would compensate her for the injury and loss she
had sustained. The first witness was George Frederick
Scholes, who deposed that he was the father of the plaintiff,
and bad formerly carried on business in Manchester, whence
he removed to Southport, 13:came acquainted with defendant
in 1853, in the beginning of which year defendant first visited
his family. He appeared to pay witness's daughter very
marked attention, which he continued to do for some
months. On one occasion, as they walked home
t)gether, witness asked defendant what his intentions
were—whether they were merely friendly or otherwise
Defendant said Mary knew whether they were not more than
friendly. Witness asked what his intentions actually were,
and the defendant replied thatliis intentions were to marry her
but that he wished to wait until his circumstances were some-
what improved, as he expected to be taken into partnership
in the concern in which he was engaged, and where his services
were indispensible. He was then manager of Messrs. Clayton's
nankeen and jean uasnufactory. Witness said time was no object
so :that he knew what his intentions were. After that he
continued visiting at witness's house frequently. This was
during the residence of witness in Manchester, and about the
end of August, last year, he removed to Southport. The
defendant visited his daughter at Southport frequently.
Witness was under the impression, for some months, that the
engagement was broken off, but ho afterwards came to know
that such was not the case, and that the plaintiff and defendant
were meeting constantly without his knowledge. The
attensions of defendant were, therefore, afer some
time again openly resumed with witness's consent.
Defendant visited them at Southport, and frequently took his
daughter out as before. Heard something there which induced
him to 'visit Mr. Clayton's house. Mr. Clayton asked them
to go to investigate the matter. Defendant was there. A
great many questions were put to defendant, and the result
was, that they all pronounced him guilty. (Laughter.) Mr.
Clayton told him he had acted like a villain to witness's
daughter. Defendant tried to excuse himself ; but, finally,
expressed his sorrow, and offered to do all in his power to
make good the wrong he had done. Miss Clayton said he had
deceived both her and witness's daughter, that she could never
place any confidence in him, and that she never would marry
him. Remembert seeing a little book, called A Gift for all
Seasons," presented to his daughter by defendant, and enclosing
a piece of poetry, headed, " Forget Me Not." It was
inscribed inside—" Presented to Miss Mary Elizabeth Scholes,
on her twenty-first birth-day, by her affectionate friend,"
That book came to his daughter during the time that witness
supposed the engagement between his daughter and defendant
was broken off. The Clerk of the court then read, amid much
laughter, the following exquisite and touching poetic outpouring
of the defendant's affection :
"FORGET ME NOT."
To flourish in my native bower,
To blossom round my cot,
I cultivate a little flower
They call "forget me not."
Though oceans wide between us roar,
And distant be our lot,
And shou'd I never see thee more,
Dearest, " forget me not."
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins then took up the reading, and delivered
the following verses, in which the reader will perceive that the
only original portions are those in which the defendant's
memory failed him, and he introduced some happy alterations
of his own composition, " thrown off" without any particular
reference to the expression of any meaning :

FORGET THEE
Forget thee ?—lf to dream by night and muse on thee by day;
If all the worship dee,, and wild a po't's heart can pay ;
If prayer in absence, breathed for thee to heaven's protecting power
If winged thoughts that flit to thee, a thousand in an hour;
If busy fancy blending thee with all my future lot—
.. _ _ • - -

If this thou e :ilest "Forgetting," thoii indeed shalt be forgot

Forget thee? —Bid the forest birds forget their sweetest tune
Forget thee?-13,d the sea forget to swell baneath the moon ;
Bid the thirsty flowers forget to drink the eve's refreshing dew ;
Thyself forget thine own dear land aid its mountains wild and blue
Forget each old familiar face, each long remembered spot;
When these things are forgot by thee, then thou stialtioe forgot.
When eyes are beaming
What never tongue might tell ;
When tears are streaming
From their crystal cell
When hands are linled that dread to part,
And heart is met by throbbing heart,
Oh, bitter, bitter is the smart
Of them that bid farewell

When hope is chidden
That fain of bliss would tell,
And lave forbidden
In the breast to dwell ;
When fettered by a viewless chain,
We turn and gaze, and turn again,
Oh, death were mercy to the pain
Of them that bid farewell !
Burn this as soon as read, please. Now 12 o'clock.
Feb. 21, 1855. J. M. B

The following letter was then put in and read, addressed by
the defendant to the plaintiff, subsequent to the discovery of
his second engagement :

Manchester, Nov. 29, 1855

Dear Mary,—l am put to the utmost stretch of mind how
to begin this letter. I cannot tell you by this means my real
sufferings of mind, body, and soul. I only wish I might be
privileged to see you. I would gladly acknowledge all my
faults. I pray for forgiveness. I know and feel I have not
treated you as I ought to have done. I have been anything
but honourable in my engagements with you. I hope and
trust you will forgive, and I earnestly and heartily beg of you
not to use lawful means to bring me to punishment. I know
and feel I richly deserve it. But don't take that means, for
the sake of Mrs. Clayton and family. I learn that your father
is determined to punish me. (When will my punishment be
over ?) I have fallen into the mistake i have mercy upon me.
Father tells me that yqu have been suffering much since I saw
you last. I feel sorry when I know that. I have been the
cause. I wish I could undo all that has been done. Mary,
ask your father not to put me into the lawyer's bands. If he
does, lam lost and ruined. I have had my share of trouble,
but this is the greatest. lam more fit for bed than to be at
the warehouse. I don't wish to injure your character, far
from it. lam willing to give you a written acknowledgment
(that you can show to any one) that I have treated you
unkindly, wickedly, and deceitfully, and that your conduct
throughout has been blameless and virtuous. (You know me,
Mary.) I am sure this would be better than punishing me.
I hope you will beg of your father to forgive, and not to pro-
ceed against me. (" Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive
them that trespass against us ") (The parable of the debtors.)
I hope you will excuse this scribble. I shall be glad to hear
from you or any of the family, or see them, and beg from
them pardon.—l am, your most unfaithful creature,
JAMES M. BRIERLEY.
Witness cross-examined by Mr. Wheeler : The marriage of
defendant took place last June. It was some time after the
interview he spoke of that the letter just read was written.
Never heard that defendant was paying attention to Miss
Clayton, until I heard he was going to be married to her,
Witness's daughter was not receiving the attentions of any
other man in September. Witness did think that matters
had gone too far between his daughter and Mr. Clegg to be
broken off. To Mr. Sergeant Wilkins : Wrote a letter to his
daughter when under that impression, and received an answer
from which he felt satisfied that Clegg was not her suitor.—
Mrs. Mary Scholes, wife of the former witness, said that she
remembered defendant beginning to pay attentions to her
daughter, rather more than three years ago. Remembers her
husband speaking to the defendant abont it. Defendant
continued to, pay attentions to her, and came as an accepted
suitor. He did net in witness's presence say anything about
marriage. On the 28th of November, 1855, witness and her
husband went to Manchester, to Mr. Clayton's. They told
Mrs. Clayton they heard Miss Clayton was to be married to
Mr. Brierley in the following month. Defendant came in soon
after, and Mrs. Clayton and her family accused him of being
deceitful, and of carrying on a doable correspondence at the
same time. Mr. Clayton said he had acted like a scoundrel.
Defendant said he did not deny it, but said he did not run
after witness's daughter, that he had not to ask her twice to
get her likeness taken. Witness grew vexed and said she
would not bear her daughter spoken of in that disrespectful
way, belause she knew ho had to ask her very often. Defend-
ant did not express hie sorrow, but was more inclined to be
insulting. Remembers, in the February previous, a hook
coming to her daughter in a sealed envelope. This was during
a time when witness and her husband thought the engagement
was broken off Witness did riot see him from February of
that year nntil August. This closed the plaintiff's
case. Mr. Sergeant 'Wilkins briefly addressed the jury,
recapitulating the effects of the evidence produced.
Mr. 'Wheeler then addressed the jury for the defendant,
contending that it was not a case in which the plaintiff was
entitled to receive any large damages—that the attentions hed
not been of a very serious nature, as WAS evidenced by the
inscription in the book,which was merely signed " her affection.
ate friend," and that the attachment was at most of the
merest platonic character on both sides. Ilk, Lordship
having summed up, the jury, after a few minutes consideration,
found-for the plaintiff, with £l5O damages.

BENNETT AND ANOTUEB, V. IRELAND.—This was an action
to recover an arrear of rent of certain mills, and a piece of
land, taken by defendant from plaintiffs, Mr. Hugh Hill,
Q.C., and Mr. Tomlinson, appeared for the plaintiffs ; and My.
Attorney-General Knowles, Q C., with Mr, Cole, for
defendant. The defendant had paid £lO iato court, and
pleaded a set-off of £2 16-, paid by him, on account of property
tax. The jury found for the plintiffs—damages £lB 14s.
DUNCAN V. CROITEII.—This was an action for work done
and ser,vices rendered. Mr. Duncan was a civil engineer, au,
the defendant, Mr. Cropper, an extensive railway contractor, Mr,
of Liverpool. Mr. Tones appeared for the plaintiff, and n.L.' •
E. James, Q.C., with Mr. Crompton Hutton, for the dc.

IT

fondant. The case for the plaintiff was, that, in 1845, he wag
engaged by the defendant to superintend some works which
the defendant had in hand, in connection with the Ashton
branch of ►he Lancashire and Yotkshire railways. In 1848
he was engaged to make certain calculations to assist the
defendant in tendering for othf.r works, which he did. He
con,inued to do work for th,t (lefndant. until 1853, when
In 1834 ho was also engaged by

left his

serve(
defendant to make calculations, to assist him in tendering
for works on the I ive:pool and Southport line, and also on a
line called the Furness line. In these transactions the plaintiff
alleged that be bad incurred various expenses for travelling
and other matters. He made several applic ttions for payment,
but it appeared that at that, time defendant had a partner
named Harding, and as there were several etcconnts transacted
between them, he postponed setzling with plaintiff until he had
settled with his taco partner. Portions of the plaintiff's claims
were disposed of by the statute of limitations, and the action
was ;brought now to recover £5B 7s. Defendant had paid
£25 into court. The questions involved were wholly details
of account. The defence was that the plaintiff had been
receiving a regular salary for much of the work alleged by
plaintiff to have been extra, and that some of the other
items were overcharged. The jury found for the plaintiff
with damages £3O 15s above the sum paid into court.
ATK NS v. BELLOTT.—This u'as an action of (-jectment.
The plaintiff was Mr. Ambrose Atkins, grocer, residing upon
his own property at Broughton, near Manchester, and the de.
fondant, a gentleman, occupyirg property adjoining that of the
plaintiff. The latter property belonged to a gentleman
named Skelton, whose tenant Bellott was. This action was
brought to recover possession of three small separate portions
of land, which tho plaintiff considered of importance to him,
and to which he alleged he had a clear title. It was alleged
that the defendant hal not kept within the proper limits to
which be was ertitled by his lease, but had infrioged unlit the

property of the plaintiff in these portions of land which were
the subject of the action. Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr.
Russell, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.-Hugh Hill, Q.C,
with Mr. Baylis, for the defendant. On the suggestion of his
Lordship, an arrangement was entered into between the parties,
and a juror withdrawn by consent
The Court the

ljnuined

NORTH AND SOUTH WALES BANK

The twentieth annual meeting of the proprietors of this
bank was held yesterday, at the Clarendon-rooms; Richard
Griffith, Esq., presided. Mr. Rea, the general manager of
the bank, read the following