Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING
ASSIZES.
CROWN COURT.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE MLLES.
His Lordship took his seat on the bench, this morning, at

sine o'clock

MANSLA.TIGHTER BY A MIDWIFE AT ASHTON-I:I=ER-
LyNE. --Mary Craig, an old woman about 60 years of age,
was indicted on a coroner's warrant of the manslaughter of
Julia Flannigan, at Ashton-under-Lyre. Mr. Kay apr
for the prosecution, and Mr. Hopwood defended the pi
The deceased was a single woman, about 30 year
and lodged in the house of a labourer named
above Tact(

ld on the night of •the sth December last, th
prisoner a well-known midwife in the locality, was sent fo
to attend the deceased in childbirth. On the folk-

morning Flannigan-was delivered of a child, and appeared to b€
.haasted state. The prisoner then became .nervous,

in a vet.

and ins

3ctor being sent

)r. Lees.

and accoucheur, was brought in. On examining the decease
he found that a considerable portion of the womb had bees
tern away, and that she had been also severely injured'
oa
other parts of the body. Mortification resulted, and the
-woman died inconsequence. The case having been heard
His Lordship left it to the jury to say whet':
sidered she had been enilty of such gross and cull,
Tlnce as to cause the 'deceased's death. The jury ans
in the negative, and the prisoner was disc.
Lordship remarking that midwives ought to b
careful in cases of difficulty, end instead of acting ,
rule of thumb," they should consult a qualified medical man.
Mr. Kay stated that the great reason for instituting these
proceedings had been the great prevalence of case-
kind
among persons of the lower classes in the manuracturin
d stricts.

er they. o

.ed ; Ili

e 'extremely

pon 4t the

s Of thi

ASSAULT AND ROBBERY AT MANCHESTER.— James
Hollingwood, aged 18, was indicted for havin
Manchester, on the 14th of January, along
other persons not in custody, assaulted
feather-dealer, named George Mullin. It

with several

)eared tha

about eleven o'clock on th

night in q

prosecutor, an elderly man, was passing

street, when he was

seized by anumber of men

assaulted and robbed him of his silver watch
the men were running away the prosecutor reco,
the prisoner, and subsequently gave such information as
led to his apprehension. When taken into custody, the
prisoner's coat was covered with feathers and clown,
similar to those which were sticking to the prosecutor's
clothes when he was assaulted. Mr. Armstrong, treasurer
and superintendent of the Manchester Ragged School
gave the prisoner, who had been an attendant at

,p,mised

•
institution, an excellent character. The jury . found the
prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to six months'
imprisonment with hard labour.
PASSING BASE CoIN.—A female, named Elizabeth
Heslop, respectably dressed, and aged 31 years, was charged
for attempting to pass a base sovereign, at Salford, on the
3rd of February. Mr. Bliss, Q.C. and Mr. Cdbbett
appeared for the prosecution, and the prisoner was unde-
fended by counsel. On the date in question, the prisoner
went into a staymaker's shop in Salford, kept by a person
named Lee, and having purchased a pair of stays, tendered
a sovereign in payment. It was discovered that the
coin was base, and Mrs. Lee threatened to call in a police-
man, and the prisoner then ran away, but was soon
apprehended by an officer. The jury found the prisoner
guilty. Several previous convictions were proved against
her, and she was sentenced to five years' penal

servitude

ASSAULT AND ROBBERT AT TYLDESLEY.—Jas. Pinkerton,
a labourer (24), was indicted for stealing Bs. from John
Edge, at Tyldesley, on the 15th of February last. Mr. R.

A. —Cross appeared for the prosecution. On Saturday night,
the sth February, the prosecutor, an old man, had been
drinking at the King's Arms public-house, in Tyldesley,
and on leaving the house he was met at the door by a man
who walked with him for some distance. As they were
walking together through Bridge-street, the prisoner put
his hand in prosecutor's pocket, and with the other knocked
him down. The man lay on the ground for a short time,
and on recovering he found that Bs. had been abstracted
from his pocket. The prisoner was identified by several
witnesses as the man who had been in company with the
prosecutor, after the time he was robbed. The prisoner
was found guilty, and a previous conviction for felony having
been proved against him, he was sentenced to four years'
Pe

Jnal servitude-.
HOUSE BREAKING AT MANCHESTER.—John Costi, aged
17, was indicted for having committed a burglary at
Manchester. The case was this : Mr. lain Kean, who
who lives at 22, Ripton, Hulme, Manchester, retired to rest
about eleven o'clock at night, leaving his house perfectly
safe ; but, at four o'clock in the morning, a policeman,
going his round, discovered that the premises had
falSZlnga'6l:

e prison(

er pledged a

tepartil.
, Coat at a pawnshop,

at Manchester, and this cost was identified as the prose.
tutor's, and the prisoner was recognised as the person who
had pledged the coat. The jury found the prisoner guilty.
A previous conviction was proved against him, and he was
sentenced to six years' penal servitude. His Lordship
stated that the prisoner had been before the courts on twelve
different occasions.

BIGAMY

Y AN ACTOR.—Edward Harley Tannett, aged
35, a travelling comedian, was indicted for bigamy. It was
deposed that the prisoner had married Emma Julia Dennis
at Manchester, his former wife being then alive. Mr.
Wheeler appeared for the defence. The prisoner was first
married on the Ist October, 1844, at Nottingham, to Sarah
'Wilson. When he was engaged as an actor, and after his
marriage, his wife also went on the stage, and she was
y separated from her husband in.consequenee of
gagements in different parts cf,the country.
1857, the prisoner was engaged at the
aeatre, and during the engagement he
inted with the young woman Dennis,
sying at Hulton's beerhouse, in the
The prisoner went to Whitehaven,

occasional)_
their having e
In Septembel
Birkenhead '.
became acau

who was then

vicinity of

.Lcquest, Dennis joined him there. They
occupied the same lodgings and travelled from town to
town in company. In January, 1858, they arrived in
Manchester, and, on the 26th of that month, they were
married at St. Barnabas's Church in that city. The

wife soo

afterwari

ors.
, and the

arrived in Manches
second wife becoming aware of the fact, sold the furniture
which had been purchased to furnish the house which was
taken by the prisoner, and then gave him into custody.
Before the police, the prisoner strongly protested that, he
had never been formally married to the first wife, but•that
he had simply cohabited with her. No evidence -to
the contrary having been produced, he was discharged.
Subsequently Dennis again met the prisoner and lived
together as man and wife for four months, when he
was again apprehended and committed for trial.
The facts having been adduced by Mr. Wheeler, in cross-
Examination of the second wife, Dennis, he advised the
prisoner to withdraw his plea of, not guilty. This was
done, by his Lords' ' '

Substit

Lordship might 1

p's consent, .and the plea of guilty was
ace was deferred, in order that his
over a palliative statement drawn up

by the prisoner

ANOTHER CAS

F BIGAMY.—muel Graves, aged 3
nz, on the sth December last

;, marne

Martha Tonge, his armor wife 1

ng then alive

Mr
for the

Preston appea're'd for the prosecution,..anil Mr. Scott
prisoner. It appeared that on the g.lst June, IL
prisoner married Emma Hall, at St. Nicholas' Church, in
this town. The inarriarre

6, the

was an unlt4ppy_ one

separated soon afterwards. Previous to ;heir separation a
young woman named Haslinden visited the prisoner's
house, and a very warm acquaintance sprung up be-
tween them, and the result was that the prisoner left
his wife, and went to live with Haslinden, and con-
tinued to live with her for about nine years. During
the first time, the prisoner Wallowed his

portion of,. t

wife a weekly sum for her mainte,aance. Some time ago,
however, the prisoner ceased to live with Haslindan, and on
the sth December married, at St. Michael's Church, in this
town, Martha Tonge. In consequence of this, Hitslinden

which led to the

gave information to the apprehension
and committal of the prisoner. 'Mr. Scott, who appeared
for the
defence, urged that the prisoner was not aware, when
he married his second wife, that his first wife was then alive,
and that it was through malice the prosecution was institu-
ted. The prisoner Was found guilty, and sentenced to t'
months'imprisonment with hard labour.
BURGLARY AT Liv.mtPon.—Augusta Brumbaum, aged
28, a Frenchman, was indicted for having, at Liverpool, on
the 3rd of January last, burgiariously entered the dwelling-
house of John Kirkpatrick, with intent to steal. Mr.
Temple appeared for the prosecution, and the prisoner was
undefended by counsel. It appeared that a policeman,
while going his rounds, noticed the prisoner come out of the
garden of Mr. Kirkpatrick's house. The officer watched
him through various streets and saw him re-enter the
garden. Shortly afterwards he heard some glass smashed,
and on going to the house, found the cellar window broken'
open. The inmates of the house were aroused, and on the
house being searched, the prisoner was discovered in the
place, and was removed by the policeman to bridewell.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to
s' imprisonment with hard labour.
AND ROBBERY AT LIVERPOOL.—John James,
22. was indicted for having assaulted Henry Salzer, a cotton
olerk, at Liverpool, and stolen from his person
a match-box. Mr. Conway appeared fur the prosecution.
The prisoner was undefended. It was deposed that about
ten o'clock on the night of the 19th .
December last, Salzer
met a female in Church-street, and while conversation
with her, the prisoner and another man came up
seized bim and knocked him down, and robbed
him of his match-box. The prisoner ran away,but
the prosecutor ran after him, and caught him, with
the assistance of some men, in an entry off Leigh-street.
The prisoner was found guilty, and a previous conviction
;was proved against him, His Lordship? addressing the

nine niontn
ASSAULT

merchant's

prisoner, said he had been guilty of a robbery of a class
which. appeared to be but too common in tthis and other
large towns, and he must select the present case as an
example, for the purpose of showing that, offences of this
serious nature could not the committed. with impunity. He
was-sentenced to ten years' penal servitude.
ROBBERY AT MANCHESTER. Hayman, 20,
Richard Pickup, 21, and Hugh Lanagan, 28, were indicted
for having committed a robbery at Manchester. It appeared
that on the night of the 10th Deceinber last, about 12
o'clock, the prosecutor, John Smith,, a draper's assistant,
was proceeding home, and when in Low-fields he passed the
three prisoners. Shortly afterwards !Hayman caught hold
of him by the neck, whilst Pickup held his hands, and
Lanagan robbed him'of his gold chain. The prisoners .ran
away, and the prosecutor following Hayman succeeded tin
catching him, and gave him into the custody of the police.
The prisoners were identified ,by a Mrs. Brown, whe

happened to be near the place at the time of the robbery
When the evidence was concluded, counsel addressed -th

e prisoners. The prisoners were Found
guilty, previous cotvictions were-proved against them, ,and
they were sentenced, Pickup to 6 years, Lanaganto.lo
years, and Hayman to 15 years' penal servitude. The
latter prisoner had been previously sentenced to 10 Tears'
penal servitude.

behalf of .t

The court then adjourned,

9 o'cloi

NISI PRIUS COt

rtly after 7 o'clock, till

YESTERDAY

Mr. Justice Byles entered Court at nine o'clock, yester-
day, and proceeded with the hearing of civil causes.
M'GILL v. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY

COMPANY

The jury ,were sworn in this case, but

Wheeler, upon the part of the plaintiff, asked for the in-
dulgence of the court for &few minutes while the plaintiff,
who was absent, was being sent for. He stated that the
plaintiff was in court during the whole of yesterday, but,
unfortunately, was not then.present. His Lordship waited
for about ten minutes, but at the expiration of that time,
as the plaintiff did not make his appearance and the learned
i his opening statement, he
out. His Lordship added,
that he would not restore it, declaring that with such a
cause list as that before,him, it was absolutely necessary
they should begin punctually and early.

I not p

.d the c

JEAVES AND ANOTHER V. WILSON.—This was an action
upon a bill of exchange. The plaintiffs were brush
manufacturers carrying •on business in Sheffield and in
Manchester, and the defendant was a grinder in Sheffield,
where he also carried on a " hair-seating" business—the
latter, however, being managed entirely by his wife. It
appeared from the evidence for the plaintiffs, that a quantity
of hair, value £96 55., was sold by them to the defendant,
in June last, and two bills of exchange received in part
payment. One bill was for £27, at four months, and the
other for £27 6s. 6d., at -five months. The balance, being
£42 Bs., was to be taken out in curled hair, and a quantity
of such hair, to the value of £l2 2s. Bd. 'was actually
delivered. A balance of £3O 16s. 2d. still remained,
and for this Mrs. Wilson proposed to give a
third bill, stating that it was not in her power to
supply any more curled hair. A third bill was
accordingly drawn and accepted to fall due a month later
than that for £27 2s 6d. The bill for £27 was met when it
fell due . that for £27 2s 6d was dishonoured, but two
separate sums of £lO were paid on account of it. The bill
for £3O 16s 2d was also dishonoured, and after repeated
promises of payment had been made, the present action was
brought to recover the balance remaining due upon the
whole transactions. The defendant pleaded a sett-off, and
denied any liability at present, except as regarded a trifling
sum of between £3 and £4, which amount had

peen pain into the uourt
question which had to be decided in the
whether a quantity of curled hair, amounting in value
£42 18s beyond that which has just been mentioned, had or
had not been delivered to the plaintiffs. The evidence was
very conflicting upon this point, it being positively deposed
by witnesses for the defence, that 6 cwt. of curled hair had
been delivered in the plaintiff's premises, which was alto-
gether denied upon the part of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
admitted having received two cwt of curled hair, which
had been already referred to, but all knowledge of the de-
livery of an additional quantity of six cwt, stated to have
been delivered by the defendant's daughter, was denied.
The defendant's daughter deposed that she took
curled hair, which she believed was of the weight
of 6 .cwt. to the plaintiff's premises, sometime in June.
She fixed the time by stating that it was immediatly before
the poultry show in Sheffield. Her brother Thomas, a boy,
was with her, she stated, at the time. Upon this point the
question at issue in the case completely turned. Mr.
Monk, Q.C., conducted the plaintiff's case ; Mr. Atherton,
Q.C., with Mr. *ones, appeared for the defendant. The

ease was,
to

r

olac

BIRMINGHAM V. SHAW.-Mr. James, Q.C., said that
in this case the parties had consented to have a verdict
taken for £25. It was an action brought for assault and
false imprisonment, but that was not really the material

question at issue. The real question was one of an imputa-
tion upon the character of the plaintiff, which had now
been wholly withdrawn, and it was therefore agreed that a
verdict should be taken by consent. Mr. Overend, Q.C.,
said, although his client (the defendant) had acted in the
first instance with perfect bond fide, and without malice, he
was quite satisfied that the charge ought never to have been
made —he regretted that it had been made, and completely
withdrew it. A verdict was then given for £25.
WATKINSON V. HULME. - This was an action for slander.
The declaration stated that the defendant had slandered the
plaintiff, by stating that she had had a child, and had used
poisonous medicines, &c., &c. Mr. Overend, Q.C., for the
defence, stated that his client was satisfied the statement had
no foundation whatever in fact. His client was not the
originator of the slander, but had unfortunately repeated
what was said by another, and then became the publisher of
it. She was very sorry that such a statement had
ever been made, and authorised him fully to withdraw

it, to make the most entire apology for having made it, and
to consent to a verdict for £6O. The plaintiff's counsel
having agreed to this proposal, a verdict was accordingly
taken, by consent, for the sum mentioned
ROBERTS V. WILSON. -TI

its was an action brought to
recover a balance of £49.6s 6d, being the balance of a sum
which the plaintiff claimed for his professional services as a

scientific witness. The plaintiff was an engineer, residing in
Manchester, who had been retained as witness in a patent
case of Thomas Y. Judkins, for the balance of his expenses,
in which at £lO lOs a day the action was brought. £lO lOs
had been paid to plaintiff, and £2l had been in addition
paid into court. Mr. Oa-ens appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Wilde, Q.C., for the defence. It was agreed, however,
that a verdict should be taken,. by consent, for £lO 10s,
beyond the amount already received, and that paid into
court.

HUTCHISON V. FARRELL.—Tbe plaintiff in this case was
A millwright and machinist, residing in Salford, and the
defendant was Frederick Farrell, a joiner and builder. The
plaintiff sought to recover £173 14s for work done and
materials supplied by him to the defendant. Mr. Monk,
Q.C., and Mr. Owens conducted the plaintiff's case, and the
defendant was represented by Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr.
Aspland. The case for the plaintiff was that in the early

part of 1858 the defendant was erecting a saw-mill and
other machinery upon his premises, and in June he entered
into a contract with the plaintiff, by which the latter was to
put up a'boiler and engine for him, for which plaintiff was
to receive £lOO, exclusive of all stone and brick work, which
defendant was himself to supply. The plaintiff was also to
attach the requisite steam piping for an additional sum of
£3. If the boiler should not be completed by the 10th of
July, the plaintiff was bound by the contract to forfeit £2
for each day subsequently, until it had been put up ,in good
working order. A subsequent arrangement was made, by
which the plaintiff was to put up some necessary shafting,
mason work, &c.,•and some payments having been made an
account of the whole work (for which taken together £320
was claimed), the 'sum in dispute was reduced to that men-
tioned in the opening of the case. The ground of defence
was, that the work was not complete until eighty-three
days after the appGinted time, and that therefore the
plaintiff was to have 11.66 deducted from the amount of
his claim. It was alleged, however upon the part of the
plaintiff, that the defendant had not performed his part of
the contract in the preparation of the mason work necessary
for the reception of the engine, and that this delayed the
completion of the latter. fhe main question therefore
which the jury had to consider, was whether the non com-
pletion of the contract on the lOtt:1 of July by the plaintiff,
intiff, or to that of the
,:aintiff for the amount
was owing to the neglect of the
defendant. The jury found for the p
claimed—£l73, 14s.
The Court then rose.