The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-02 00:00:00

SENTENCE OF DEATH.

His Lordship then drew on the black cap, and pro-
ceeded to pass sentence on the prisoners. He said :
Philip Wall and James Carr. The jury, after a most
patient investigation of the case and hearing everything
that could be urged on your behalf, have found you guilty
of murder. They have accompanied that verdict with a
recommendation to mercy. With that I have nothing to
do beyond furthering it for the consideration of the
advisers of the Queen who will act upon it as they shall
think fit. But so far as I am concerned I have but one
duty to perform, and that is to sentence you to die. I
did not inquire what were the reasons which have induced
the jury to give that recommendation, but I presume it is
in consequence of the state of drunkenness in which you
probably all were, or may be supposed to have been in ;
but, however, that may be it is their recommendation
and I shall further it to the proper quarter. At the same
time I may say that my own judgment goes along with
their verdict, which they have found, and I do
not see how they could have arrived at
any other conclusion but that the unfortunate man House
came to his death by your hands upon that night. The
circumstances were such as, 1 own, left no doubt upon
my mind that their verdict was a correct one, and that
there was no way in which the death was to be accounted
for, except that you, both of you probably, made use of
the muffler which Carr had belonging to the woman
Fanning to choke him, and carried away that which he
had about his throat, in lieu of the one so used. Your
object. Probably, was to rob him of the little money he
had. No doubt your conduct in then staying about the
place and openly pledging the clothes the following morn-
ing, may have induced the jury to think you not so
responsible for your conduct, as other people who would
have acted differently. But, however that may be, I
have but one duty to perform, and I beseech you both not
to place any confidence in the recommendation to mercy.
I shall not at all stand in the way of it, but I by no means
feel certain that the advisers of the crown will advise a
remission of your sentence. Take warning by what I
tell you and do not put too great confidence, or any con-
fidence, in that recommendation. Iby no means feel
certain that the recommendation of the jury will be acted
upon.. Therefore, I do beseech you to take timely warning
and to avail of the opportunity which will be given to
you to make your peace with God, because it may be that
you will very shortly be called before Him. All I have
to do is to pronounce the last sentence of the law, that
you, Philip Wall, and you, James Carr, for the crime of
murder of which you are now convicted, be taken from
hence to the prison from which you came, be taken from
thence to the place of execution, and there to be hanged
by the neck until your bodies be dead, and then to be
buried within the precincts of the prison; and may the
Lord have mercy on your souls !—His Lordship seemed
deeply affected, and immediately left the bench. The
prisoners were then removed, and walked down with
firm steps. The hearing of this case occupied the whole
day.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES.)
SPECIAL JURY CASES.—At the sitting of the court this
morning, the special jury cases in the Salford list were
entered on. It is supposed that Baron Martin will be
able to take up the undisposed common jury cases, this
(Wednesday) afternoon.
FIRTH V. THE NORTH OF ENGLAND FIRE AND LIFE
ASSOCIATION.—The plaintiff is a machinist of Manchester,
and he brought the present action to recover from the
defendants, the value of his stock in trade, &c., which he
had insured for £2,000 in their office,and which were des-
troyed by a fire which broke out in his premises in
Hallam-street, last July. A great portion of the property
consisted of patterns, and these not being considered by
the defendants, as strictly belonging to the stock-in-trade,
they refused the full' amount claimed by the plaintiff,
and offered him £7O. Subsequently, however, they
thought better of the matter, and paid £1,200 into court.
The plaintiff claimed £1,670, and under these circum-
stances a verdict was entered by agreement for the plain-
tiff, subject to a reference.
WHITEHEAD V. PARKSON AND WlFE.—This was an
an action to recover compensation, for the improper
diverting of certain streams from the plaintiff's land,
near Elton, on which were certain bleaching premises,
now rendered useless by the act of the defendants. The
Attorney-general, with Mr. Monk, appeared for the
plaintiff's ; and Mr. Atherton, Q-C., with Mr. Jones, for
the defendants. After the case had proceeded some
time, it being evident that there were most important
points of law, both as regarded the rights of the parties
to the water, and also the damages, supposing that the
verdict was in favour of the plaintiffs, it was agreed that
a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff for £5,000,
nominally, subject to a special case, the damages not to
be estimated until the questions of law have been
decided.
GEE v. BOOTS AND OTIiEBS.—This was an action

f ejectment brought to recover possession of
certain premises in Manchester. Mr. Watson, 7Q.C.,
with Mr. Spinks, was for the plaintiff; andPlr. Hill, Q. C.,
with Mr. Millward, for the defendants. The plaintiff is
Joel Gee, of Ashton-under-Lyne, and the defendants are
John Booth, Charles Smith, and Thomas Lee, all of Man-
chester. The case was wholly one of pedigree, the plain-
tiff claiming to recover as heir at law to a person of the
name of Jane Gee, who died in 1854. She was the last of
a particular line counting from John and Peter Gee, and
the plaintiff, who was her cousin in a remote degree, was
the descendant of Robert Gee, the brother of John. Jane,
the party last seized of the property in question, who died
December, 1854, aged 74, was for several years before 'her
death a lunatic, proceedings in lunacy having been taken
against her in 1806. At her death she was possessed of
real and personal property, the former of which should as
a matter of course pass to the heir at law, and the latter
to the next of kin. She was the daughter of Peter Gee,
who derived from John Gee. Robert Gee was married
twice, his second wife being Rosa Lingaril, by whom he
had sons John, Ralph, and Joel, the father of the plaintiff.
Nathaniel, the alleged common ancestor by the plaintiff,
was a schoolmaster at Duckinfield, near Manchester, and
from a book in the possession of the plaintiff it would
appear that he was born about the year 1695. fie was
married to Margaret Cheatham in 1717, and he died in
1767, leaving several sons, John, Robert, Samuel, Joseph,
and Thomas. John and Robert were in partnership
together as cotton spinners, in Duckiufield, but after some
time they separated, one going to Manchester, and the
other remaining at Duckinfield. John's line was very
easily traced to Jane, in whom it ceased. Robert's line
was traced to Joel Gee, the plaintiff; but the difficulty
was to connect. the two lines, and to show that
they were brothers. Robert Gee died in 1759, but
his widow, Rosa Gee, lived to 1824, and frequently
spoke of the relationship between him and John Gee, and
also stated that their common ancestor was Nathaniel
Gee. Mrs. Saxon, the granddaughter of Rosa Gee, was
examined, and deposed to the statements made by her
during her lifetime as to John and Robert having been
brothers. The defendant's case was that the common
ancestor was Newman Gee, who married in 1715, and
that he left two sons, John and Samuel, and other chil-
dren. John's line became extinct in Jane Gee, but
Samuel, who married, left several children, among them
three daughters, who are represented in the present
defendants. In proof of this, the proceedings in lunacy
against Jane Gee were put in, among them being the
affidavit of Martha Shortcross, who deposed that she was
the maternal grandmother of the lunatic Jane Gee ; that
the common ancestor was Newman Gee, whose eldest son
was John, and second eldest Samuel, and that he had no
son named Robert. The jury, after some deliberation,
returned a verdict for the defendants. The property, we
believe, is worth £3OO a-year.