Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-06-24 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN .lIMES, FRIDAY, JUNE 2 4 1859

- Godfrey said, -" I see the man in court, and I'll give him
in charge.") Mr. Bluck : He's here AS a witness. Mr.
Bremner: Then we'll charge him. Mr. Bluck: I think
',this is very unfair. Mr. Bremner : We will charge him as
an accessory. Mr. Mansfield : If the man is charged, he
must come before me in the regular way, and not after this
r fashion. Mr. Bremner proceeded, and said that the other
man seized Mr. Godfrey by the throat, and held him. One
of the ladies in the house went to Mr. Godfrey's assistance,
when the prisoner stepped up one or two of the stairs, and
one of the ladies saw something very shining in his hand.
She did not know .what it was at that time, but it subse- '
quently turned out-to-be a stick that was highly mounted
with ivory or gold. The prisoner stepped up for the purpose
of having greater power with the stick over Mr. Godfrey,
and he struck him with it on the face, making an incised
wound on the angle of the left eye. He struck him a second '
time on the head, and he bled most profusely. The ladies,
who were present succeeded in rescuing Mr. Godfrey from his
assailant, and carried him info the parlour, where he became
insensible, and fainted from loss of blood, and he remained in
a state of unconsciousness for some time. Surgeon Caddel was
sent for and then the two men went away, butshortly afterwards
returned with two other men, and they all used violent threats
towards Mr. Godfrey, and swore that if they got him out of
the parlour that they would cut his nose off and kill him.
Subsequently the men went away, and Mr. Godfrey applied I
for a warrant to arrest the prisoner, which was granted. As
he (Mr. Bremner) before stated, Mr. Godfrey was the person
who had the management of the affairs of Mrs. Youd, and
he felt it to be his duty to protect her from such a person
as the prisoner, whose character his Worship would hear
from Mr. Godfrey himself. Mr. Godfrey was then examined,
and said I went to the house of Mrs. Youd on Monday,
about twenty
,minutes to eight. I am solicitor to her
mother and trustee. to her and her children. I saw the
prisoner, and looked at him very hard, and he stared at me.
I spoke to the ladies and asked who they were ? They said
they were strangers, and had taken lodgings there. I asked,
had, they given any reference ? and they said no; as they
knew no one in Liverpool. I said I knew the prisoner, and
that it was very indiscreet on the part of the ladies to let
lodgings to persons whom -they did not know.-- -I asked the
prisoner his name, and he replied Lewis. I asked him how
many aliases he had, and he replied that he liad none, that
his name was Lewis. I said your name is not Lewis and
you are not a stranger in Liverpool, and I said, from your
antecedents in Liverpool, you are not a fit person to live
with ladies in a • house by themselves.. I asked him if he
knew Mr. Halliwell ? He said he did not. I asked him if
he remembered having obtained £4O worth of goods from
that gentlemen, and immediately after obtaining them take
them to the pawnshop and pledge them and keep the
money ? He said he had no recollection of any such
transaction. I asked him if he recollected calling on me,
and telling me that he had obtained the goods from Mr.
Halli well, and for me to try and make a bona fide debt of
it? He said he had no recollection of it. I. asked him
again what his name was ? and he said Lewis. I told him
that my name was Godfrey, that I was an attorney, and
that he had called upon_me respecting the goods and had
never paid me, and was it possible that he had forgotten
me. He said he never saw me before. I asked him if he
did not remember when he lived in a street off Bold-street,
and if he did not recollect my calling to see him about some
goods and some emigrants that he had defrauded ? He
denied it all. I told him that I knew him well, and that
he should not stop in that house ; that his former business
transactions and moral character unfitted him to be in a
house with lone ladies. The other man then came down
stairs while I was speaking with the prisoner about his
antecedents in Liverpool, and I told the ladies they were
not safe in keeping these men in the house. I told him to
take away his pormanteau, but he refused to do so. I, told
him I would put him out myself if he did not go, and I
had a mind, at that time, to take him by the shoulder and
put him out, saying to him, you have deceived these ladies,
and I will not allow you to stop here. I had not laid my
hand on him, when the other man caught me by the
throat and nearly choked me, when the prisoner all at
once struck me a blow on the face and cut me, and I
cried out, when I found the blow coming down, " I
am wounded." One of the ladies came from the parlour
and threw • the fellow, that was holding me, from
me, when the prisoner instantly ran up two or three steps,
in order to get greater impetus or force to hit me, and he
struck me on the head with great violence, and the blood
flowed profusely from the woun. I was taken to the back
parlour, where I became unconscious for a good while,
owing to the loss of blood. Cross-examined by Mr. Bluck :
I said something to the prisoner about his having obtained
£4O worth of goods, and that he had pawned them. The
prisoner came to me professionally to consult me about the
gods on that occasion. He never paid me for my advice
r. Bluck : Do you think it right to come into that box as
an attorney, and state conversations of a private and confi-
dential description that took place between him and you as
an attorney and client? I think that, from what has taken
'place since that, it is quite consistent with my duty to do
so, and that every professional men in Liverpool will say so.
Mr. Bluck': I ask you, Mr. Godfrey, do you think it right,
as an attorney, to disclose what happens between you and
yoUr client ? Mr. Godfrey: I think in this case I have a
right to do so, and you as a professionil man know I have.
I am the trustee to the old lady's children; and the family
attorney for years. Mr. Bluck : Do you make a practice of
going to that house ? Witness : I often call there on going
from my office. I took the house for her, and I manage
her affairs generally. I did not make any inquiry
from the ladies who the gentlemen were, but I
asked them (the ladies) if they knew the
character of the prisoner. Mrs, Youd said she did not,.but
she did not like the way the prisoner went on, as he said
he came from Manchester. The prisoner and his friend
had property in the house upstairs, and when the prisoner
struck me, the other man rushed out and got away with the
property, and it is now gone, and I now want to find' out
where it is. Mr. Bluck : -You are generally warm tempered,
Mr. Godfrey. May I ask you, were you very much excited
on that occasion ? No ; not more than I ought to be. One
of the ladies took me in her arms and carried me into the
back parlour. I did not strike the prisoner at all, but I
intended to have put him out. Mr. Black : Why did you
intend doing so ? In consequence of his immoral and im-
proper business-conduct when he was in Liverpool before.
Mr. Bluck : Tell me what you witnessed of his immoral
conduct before ? Mr. Bremner objected, as this was a
question of assault, and moral conduct had nothing
to do with it. Mr. Black said, Mr. Godfrey had
stated on his direct examination, that the man was
immoral in his conduct, and therefore he (Mr. Black)
had a right to cross-examine- him as to his knowledge of
the man's universal conduct, and I now ask Mr. Godfrey
again, what immoral conduct he has seen by the prisoner.
Mr. Bremner again objected. Mr. Mansfield said, that Mr.
Godfrey had mentioned immoral conduct, but he would not
have hack any right to have interfered with the man in
the house, except for the position that he stood in with
regard to the ladies. Mr. Black insisted on knowing what
immoral conduct Godfrey knew the prisoner to be guilty of.
Mr. Godfrey proceeded to detail some transactions about
lurniture, emigrants, and other affairs that took place in a
house kept by the prisoner, in Seaton-street, and a good
deal of discourse took place on this point, when Mr. Bluck
said that, dishonesty was not the species of immorality that
he wanted to get from Mr. Godfrey, and Mr. Godfrey knew
it. A man might be dishonest, which was immorality in
itself in one way, but he wanted to get from Mr. Godfrey
the other sort of immoral conduct that he meant. After
some discussion, the cross-examninaton of Mr. Godfrey ended.
Mrs. Reynard examined : I am a widow, and sister-in-law
of the lady of tile house. I saw Mr. Godfrey come there on
Monday evening. I heard Mr. Godfrey talking to the
w one man holding Mr. Godfrey, and, We

other struggling. Belled him by the throat. I separatei
them, and I saw bleod' on - Mr. Godfrey's face. I saw the.
prisoner go up a step or two, and . saw something very
bright, and he struck Mr. Godfrey. He bled profusely
for some .time, and was , laid on the sofa, and
the surgeon was seat for. The two men went away,. and
came back with two more. I heard them say they would
cut Mr. Godfrey's nose and head off.. Cross-examined by
Mr. Bluck : Can't say which.word was used first—nose or
head. Did not hear them say that Mr. Godfrey waajealous
of two handsome young men .like them. Mrs. Youd was at
the front door. The assault took place in the lobby. I took
Mr. Godfrey. into the dining room away from them,. but did
not see him strike either of the men. -Mrs. Yond, exe.rnined:
I am a widow, and tenant of the honse in Seymour-street.
Mr: Godfrey 'came on Monday evening. The prisoner and
anotherhian were then in the lobby. -The prisoner and Mr.
Godfrey looked very hard at each other, and I said " Mr.
Godfrey, this gentleman is coming to lodge here' He said,
" I don't think he ii." He then addressed us all about the
man, and questioned him several times. The witness then
proved the assault by the prisoner, who struck Mr, Godfrey
on the head; and he bled very,much. The men then went
away, and came back with two. others. The prisoner was
the worst, and threatened him much, and said that he would
cut his nose off. He wanted to get into the parlour to Mr:
Godfrey again, but I woulsl not let him. Cross•examinod
by Mr. Black : The prisoner said he was a stranger` in
Liverpool, and. could not give any reference. He. said
money was his reference, but ) would not have that
except I thought he was a stranger. Mr. Godfrey is our
family friend, as well as solicitA., for many years. He was
at perfect liborty to put out the man. He was no more
excited thus any Eng,l4lnala would haw been under the
cirennastmea. fi. Qty,lB,ll, surge" lA,NK Godfrey

bleeding from a fresh wound on the head, and one on the
ansle of the right eye. The wound on the head is between
two and three inches. This stick would cause such wounds.
Heard threatening language by the men after, and did not
think it proper for Mr. G-Afrey to go out of the parlour.
Mr. Black :Is he much hurt ? Yes. Anything serious
No. Mr. Black : No danger of losing hini? No. Mr.
Black : He would be a great loss to Liverpool. Mr. God-
frey said he was very weak from loss of blood since. Detec-
tive Easton said he arrested the prisoner in a public-house
in Ranelagh-street, and found the stick now produced in
the bedroom. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr.
Block then proceeded to address the court for the prisoner ;
and dwelt with force on what Mr. Godfrey called the im-
morality of the prisoner, and spoke strongly of Mr. Godfrey
having disclosed the private transactions of the prisoner, who
was formerly Mr. Godfrey's client. He contended that
the prisoner was a highly respectable man, and
his friend who was with him a highly respect-
able merchant of Birmingham ; and they felt very
indignant at the treatment they had received from Mr.
Godfrey, who was not justified in putting them and
their luggage into the street. He said, the whole case
arose out of the old spite that Mr. Godfrey had against the
prisoner, because the County Court Judge had rfused to
give him a verdict against the prisoner. He contended that
the gentlemen had been treated as thieves, and they had a
right to resent such conduct. He admitted that the assault
had been committed, but, under such circumstances, that it
was a shame to have the man brought there that day. He
concluded an able address, and called M. Berger, who said,
I am a merchant of Birmingham; and was with the prisoner.
He then proceeded to give a history of the case, which did
not materially differ from the above story. He said, Mr.
Godfrey struck the prisoner first. Cross-examined by Mr.
Bremner: I did not do anything to Mr. Godfrey. This
stick belongs to the prisoner, but I can't say if I brought it
down to the prisoner. I did not seize Mr. Godfrey or touch
him. I live at 52, Great Charlotte-street, Birmingham,
and am an importer of foreign goods there eight months,
and came from London ; was never in Glasgow or Coventry.
The prisoner said, that lie was in Liverpool before, I never
went by afiy other name. I did not put my hand on:Mr. Godfrey,
I did not come with the prisoner, but on the same day. I
know the prisoner six or eight months. lie swore positively
that he did not lay a hand on Mr. Godfrey. Mrs. llernard
called, and asked if she had loosened the haUds, of
the witness from Mr. Godfrey's throat, but she could not
swear positively, but said there were only two of them there
at. the time, so it must be one of them. Mrs. Youd was
asked by .his' Worship what Was the contract between her
and the prisoner, and sae replied 14s a week, and they had
taken possession of-the' bedroom, and had put their things
into it. His Worship said they had no right to be ejected
under a week's notice. Mr. Black : And, therefore, Mr.
Godfrey had no right to interfere with and eject them from
the house. Mr. Bremner addressed the- court on the right
Mr. Godfrey had to act as he did. It was only after com-
municating with Mrs. Youd that he had so acted, and the
genial of the prisoner's name, with all the circumstances
connected with it, was a justification of his acting. His
Worship was very sorry that Mr. Godfrey had been hurt,
but he thought-he was not justified in acting as he did. He
went over the evidence in the case, and thought Mr. Godfrey
ought not, as a professional man, have done as he did. The
prisoner was discharged.