The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

YORK WINTER ASSIZES—DEC. 12.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
MURDER OF A POLICEMAN AT SHEFFIELD.
James Burke, 22, and Cormack Dunlevy, 32, were in-
dicted for the murder of Wm. Beardshaw, at Sheffield,
on the 221 of July last.
Mr. Hardy and Mr. Johnstone conducted the prose-
c ition. The prisoners were defended by Mr. Dearsley.
Mr. Hardy briefly stated the case. The person who
came by his death on the 22d of July, by the hand of
some one, was a man named Beardshaw, who was
acting on that day for the first time as a watchman
in the town of Sheffield. It appeared that a man
named M'Cormack was supposed to have been com-
mitting a robbery in the shop of John Shannan,
who charged him with the offence. M'Cormack
escaped, but he was shortly afterwards apprehended
in the neighbourhood by a policeman, and irons were
put on his hands and legs in consequence of his violent
conduct. About a thousand of M'Cormack's fellow-
countrymen (Irishmen) were assembled near the place
where he was apprehended, and on the policeman at-
tempting to put him in a cab, for the purpose of having
him conveyed to the police station, he called out to the
Irishmen, " Will you see me taken," or words to that
effect. Immediately upon this an attack was made upon
the police, stones and brickbats were thrown by the mob,
and M'Cormack was rescued, but apprehended at a later
period in the evening, when it was discovered that he
had employed the time which had intervened from his
rescue in removing the irons which the police had put
'pen him. In the course of the melee Beardshaw re-
ceived the injuries which caused his death, and another
policeman, named Dickinson, was also severely injured.
The deceased was at the time in the execution of his
duty, taking into custody a man charged with a serious
offence, and if the prisoners were two of the pal fee who
attempted to rescue this man by violence, they must be
considered responsible for the effects produced by such
means as they employed. It would be proved that the
prisoners were extremely violent ; that they were seen
by many witnesses to throw stones and use other vio-
lence to the police. This was not the case of a disturb-
ance between private individuals ; here were police offi-
cers in the execution of their duty, and he (the learned
counsel) should submit, under the correction of his lord-
ship, that anything which was done to them resulting in
death would bring the offence within the crime of
murder.
Mr. Baron Martin dissented from this view of the law;
to convict of murder, the intention must be brought
home to the person committing the crime.
Mr. Hardy said that, after this intimation from the
learned judge, he should abandon the capital offence,
and charge the prisoners with the manslaughter of
Beardshaw merely.
The witnesses for the prosecution were then called.
Amongst these—Jane Jubb deposed that on the night in
question she saw Burke throw a stone during the melee,
and on a companion saying to him, " Get out of the way,
you have hurt a watchman," he exclaimed with an oath
that he would kill the watchmen.—George Rushton, a
police constable, proved that he saw Dunlevy throw
stones twice at the police ; he was twice hit.—John
Hill also saw Burke throw stones, and heard him say
that he " would kill the watchman." He was as-
sisting in conveying Dickinson, who hadbeen injured, tle
the infirmary, when Burke struck him (witness) over the
back with a stone in a stocking, and he also stab.
bed him in the right arm with a knife.—Thomas
(el
snh
abiwTweerrule
akenkocwk
Chapiey proved that Burke kickedtopolicemen who
had been knocked down in a gutter.—Samson Barker,
aq
eeing put in • to the cab, he an
ehcet oa head,
o fa upde
police constable, deposed thdatßewarh
ed
said
d,,oowhn: m
yB ihaeradds
Samuel
uheils
is
present, an I
Lhaieniley,toihn
the riot. Both the prisoners were
d.they
saw
d that the deceased's skull
—Mr. Wright, surgeon, prove
appeared to take a very active part in the disturbance.
was fractured, and that consequent extravasation of
was such a one as was likely to have been pro , y
blood on the brain was the cause of death. The
nweodunbd
a stone.
Mr. Dearsloy, on rising to address the juryno mfoarnthile
defence, remarked that he would yield to ,
struggling to the last for a client when there wase wanays-
thing like a fair chance of success ; but when there
not Le would not do it to please any client. Tho ques-
tion was, were the jury satisfied that the witnesses who
had spoken to the prisoners throwing stones and strik-
ing persons were to be believed ? He had no instruc-
t
instruc-
tions that he could shake their credibility, and without
such instructions it would be improper for him to
attempt
to
of possibility,
se. Therefore all he could say was this
the night was dark, there was no light, and it was within
he
range
possibility, and that was all, that some of
the
_rwitnesses might have been mistaken.
M . Baron Martin told the jury that there was no
evidence of murder at all, and the jury found the pre- ,
toners guilty of manslaughter.
RIOT AT SHEFFIELD.
William M`Cm•mitk, 32, Patrick Charleston, 19,
Hichact Finnerty, 46, and Robert Smith, 38, were in-
dicted for a riot at Sheffield, on the 22d of July last.
Mr. Ha,rdyand Mr.Johnstone were for the prosecution;
Mr. Doarsley and Mr. Shepherd defended the prison. rs .
The circumstances were very similar to those stated iu
the preceding case ; in fact, it was in the course of this
disturbance that the poor fellow whose death had just
been inquired into was killed.
Several witnesses were called to prove the particular
part which the prisoners severally took in the traneac-

tion. They were heard to urge on the crowd to violence,
and themselves throw stones, and were heard to vow
vengeance against the police.
All the prisoners were found guilty.
Mr. Baron Martin, in sentencing the prisoners, said
he had made up his mind to make an example of them,
in order that the people of this country might see that
the law and the peace should be upheld, if possible.
Here were six men belonging to a large body of people
resident in this country--he alluded to the Irish—who,
obliged probably to leave their own country because of
its poverty, came over to this country, where they en-
joyed better wages and other great advantages which
they could not have at home, and yet they could not
keep quiet, but must needs display their gratitude by
breaking the peace of this country, and indulging in all
sorts of riot and acts of violence. He considered Burke
the worst of the party engaged in this present transaction,
he having thrown the stone which in all probability
killed the policeman, and having also struck another
man with a stone in a stocking, and stabbed him in the
arm with a knife. The sentence upon him, therefore,
was that he be transported for 15 years. As to Smith,
he considered him quite as bad, he having beat a man
while he was almost dead, and then sworn upon the re-
monstrance of his own daughter, that he would murder
him ; but the law would not allow him to give Smith the
same punishment as Burke. He, however, should give
him 2 years' imprisonment, with hard labour ; and the
other four prisoners, Dunlevy, M'Cormick, Charleston,
and Finpet ty, must be severally imprisoned for 12 months
with hard labour.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—DEC. 12.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightiaan.)
AGGRAVATED CASS OF MANSLAUGHTER.
John O'Neil, 25, labourer, was indicted upon a coro-
ner's warrant for the wilful murder of Thomas Cahill, at
Liverpool, on the 6th October. The deceased and the
prisoner were neighbours, and resided in a court in Scot-
land-road. Their children bad been playing, and the
prisoner's little girl having been pushed down and some-
what injured by a boy of the deceased's, the prisoner a
few day's afterwards came into Cahill's house, brandish-
ing a knife, and swearing that he " would have blood for
blood." No direct violence, however, appears to have oc-
curred that night, but on the night of the 6th October,
O'Neill again entered the house in a state of intoxication,
but net finding Cahill then at home, he returned about
midnight, when the deceased was in bed, and kicked
violently at the door, at the same time challenging the
deceased to come out and fight. Cahill got up, looked
out of the window, and though his wife did all she could
to persuade him to remain in the house, he went down
stairs, and haring laid a poker upon the kitchen table,
opened the door, and advised O'Neill to go home. "Don't
(said he) let us quarrel about the children—go home,
and I will talk to you to-morrow," On this the pri-
soner struck the deceased twice, and the latter then
went into the house. The prisoner followed him and
struck him again, when the deceased cried out " I'm
stabbed." He fell, and on his friends coming to him
they found that he had received a wound in the left
breast. When the prisoner was taken into custody, a
pocket-knife, with blood on the blade, was picked up close
to the door. In consequence of the dangerous state of
Cahill, his deposition was taken on the Monday follow.
ing, before Mr. Bolton, and in the presence of the pri-
soner. Cahill, in this deposition, stated that he was
stabbed by the prisoner, though " he never struck him
from first to last." Cahill died the same day (Monday),
and the prisoner was subsequently committed for trial
by the borough coroner. The deceased's relatives and a
host of witnesses were called to prove the above facts.
Mr. Macdonald, who made his maiden speech in defence of
the prisoner, argued that when O'Neill committed the
crime with which he was charged he was not in his proper
senses, and he could not be charged with the crime of wil-
iol murder. The jury found the prisonerguilty of the minor
offence of manslaughter. His lordship then passed sen-
tence in the following terms :—John O'Neill, the jury
have taken a favourable view of your case, in deciding
that you are guilty of manslaughter. Notwithstanding
the circumstances under which this homicide was com-
mitted, they have not been satisfied, beyond all reason-
able doubt, that, however desperate, however reckless,
your conduct may have been, that you were actu-
ated by that deliberate malice which is essential
to the crime of murder. But your crime is only just
barely below that of murder. The facts of the case—the
instrumentwhich you used, in the absence of all resist-
ance on the part of the deceased—are deep aggrava-
tions of your guilt, and make this one of the worst cases
of Manslaughter that I ever recollect to have occurred
in the course of my experience. You appear, by the evi-
dence, to be of a temperament which, when exasperated
by drink, is quite ungovernable. It is another ca=e,
arising out of the already too fearful catalogue from that
deplorable vice, intemperance. The sentence upon you
is, that you be transported for the term of your natural
life.—The prisoner received the sentence apparently un-
concerned, but his wife and other relatives in court
uttered the most distressing cries until removed by the
officers of the court.
MURDER AT GORTON.—THE WRONG MAN CHARGED.
Patrick Healey, 20, weaver, was indicted along with
Michael Healey (not in custody) for the wilful murder
of William Bell, at Gorton, near Manchester, on the let
of September. The evidence had proceeded for some
time, when it became evident that another man struck
the fatal blow, the prisoner taking no part in the affray,
only being in company of Michael Healey. His lord-hip
said they had evidently got hold of the wrong man.—The
jury acquitted the prisoner ; and his lordship, in die-
i'larging him, warned him to avoid brawls in future.
MANSAUGIITER AFTER A FUNERAL.
James Ascroft, S 3, collier, was charged with the man-
slaughter of his wife, Bridget Ascroft, at Wigan, on Sa-
turday, 22d September. The deceased and another
woman, a neighbour, went to a funeral on the afternoon
of the day named, and on their return called at a public
house, and had "a little sup of drink." The prisoner
also came into the house, and drank with them for some
time. He left about eleven, but the woman remained
" supping" until nearly twelve o'clock at night, when, in
going home, they met the prisoner, and the deceased and
he (both of them drunk) went towards home together.
Soon after several persons saw the prisoner beating the
deceased in Wellington-street (Wigan), and heard her
crying out for mercy, and her husband applying vile epi-
theta to her. He kicked and beat her most severely, and
between one and two o'clock on the Sunday morning,
she was found lying insensible and in a stape of collapse
in an adjoining entry, attention having been drawn to
hsr by some females. The prisoner, it appease 1, also
went to one or two parties who knew him, and asked
them to " come and look at Bridget, lying nearly kilt."
Eventually, the woman was taken home, and attended
by a surgeon, but she died on the Thursday following,
from inflammation of the brain, caused by the injuries
she had received. The jury at once returned a verdict
of guilty. His lordship in passing sentence again al-
luded to the painful number of cases arising from habits
of intemperance, and sentenced the prisoner to 15 years'
transportation. —The prisoner appeared agreeably sur-
prised at the result of the trial, and with apparent since-
rity he ejaculated, " Thank you, sir," as he left the dock.
MANSLAUGHTER BY MISTAKE.
Joshua Tunstall, 33, labourer, was charged upon a
coroner's warrant with the wilful murder of Hannah
Bailey, at Haydock, near St. Helen'e.—On the night of
the 19th September, the prisoner, who is a member of a
enefit society, went into the club-room in a state of
iquor, and this being against the rules of the society, he
was remonstrated with, and became exceedingly angry,
challenging all the members to fight. On getting, near
home he suet Thomas Tunstall, a young man also a
member of the society, who lived a few doors from him.
He and Tunstall had a quarrel through his accusing
Tunstall of disgraceful conduct. Tunstall struck him a
blow with a piece of wood, and then ran away, and took
refuge in a yard. He was chased by the prisoner, who,
finding himself foiled, went back to his own house and
got a poker. He then challenged Tunstall to come out,
and the latter did, but again escaped him. At this time
the deceased, an old woman, 72 years of age, who lived
meat dour to Tunstall, was standing outside her own
door, having been attracted by the row. The prisoner
attacked her, as it would appear, by mistake, for shortly
afterwards he went into the house and solicited her par-
don. In the attack, however, he broke the old woman's
head, and fractured several of her ribs, and she died in
two hours and a-half.—Mr. Atkinson made an able speech
on behalf of the prisoner, urging that Thomas Tunstall
was the person really responsible for the death of the
deceased ; and that, supposing the prisoner believed he
was striking Thomas Tunstall, when attacking the old
woman, the provocation he had received from him would
constitute the case one of manslaughter only. Verdict,
guilty of manslaughter ; sentence, 5 years' penal !tern- I
tude.