The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-28 00:00:00

ASSIZE IN TELLIGENCE

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Llrsnraor, AUG. 2C.
Jain Fagan was indicted for the murder of James
Sheridan, at Liverpool.
It appeared that the deceased, Sheridan, was a mas-
ter Jumper, and employed the prisoner and his brother
Charles in the way of his business. About two years
ago they were thus engaged, and having finished a day's
work demanded payment of the amount earned. The
deceased had no money, but applied to the captain of
the ship on board of which they were at work, who re-
fused to pay until the job was completed. This pro-
duced some angry words between the deceased and the
Fagans, but they finally adjourned to a public house,
where they had some ale. The discussion recommenced,
and both the Fagans assaulted the deceased. The
police were called in, but the quarrel seemed to be
over, and they were allowed to depart. Shortly after
the deceased entered his own cellar, accompanied by the
two Fagans, and complained to his wife that they had
cruelly ill-treated him. They then attacked him again,
saying they would either have their money or his life,
and beat both him and Mrs. Sheridan in a very
cruel manner. The deceased lingered for some weeks,
and at his death it was found that numerous abscesses
had formed in his bowels ; his liver was gangrenous, and
one of his kidneys was destroyed. These injuries, in
the opinion of the medical men, had been caused by ex-
ternal violence. For this offence Charles Fagan was, a
considerable time ago, transported for life. The ques-
tion in the ptesent case was one of identity, it being
contended for the prisoner that a third brother (Patrick
Fagan) had been the party who committed the offence.
The prisoner was identified, however, by Mrs. Sheridan
and other parties, who were present at the first or
second affray. None of these persons, however, with
one exception, bad ever seen him before. This person
was a police-officer, who was stationed at the dock, and
had merely seen him going backwards and forwards with
other labourers to the ships. According to his testimony
he was usually called Patrick. He saw the prisoner in
the early part of the day demanding his money from the
deceased. It appeared from the statement of the de-
ceased, made shortly before his death, that Patrick and
Charles were the persons whom he accused of injuring
him. None of the Fagans, however, were in custody at
the time, so that the precise individuals cannot be iden-
tified by him. It appeared from other evidence that the
two parties who committed the offence were very shortly
after in the house of one of the witnesses for the prose-
cution, hiding from the police officers. While there,
they addressed one another by the names of Charles
and Patrick. Some conversation with the prisoner the
day following this occurrence was sworn to, tending to
show admissions on his part that he was engaged in the
transaction, and a woman, in whose house he subse-
quently lodged at Preston, and who finally gave the in
formation on which he was apprehended, stated that on
one occasion a person calling himself Patrick Fagan vi-
sited the prisoner, and that she overheard them beneath
the window talking in Irish. Patrick was reproaching
the prisoner, and saying it was very bard for him, Pa-
trick, to leave the country for what the prisoner had
done.

Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury for the defence, and
called a witness, who stated that she knew all the Pa-
gans, and that she was present outside the cellar of
Sheridan when the occurrence took place. She declared
that it was Patrick, and not John, who was the indivi-
dual sworn to by the witnesses for the prosecution, as
having come up out of the cellar with his shirt off on
the occasion in question.
On cross-examination, it appeared that she had been
at that time living with the prisoner as his wife, and
that their residence was at a considerable distance from
the cellar occupied by Sheridan.
The Jury finally returned a verdict of Guilty of
Manslaughter. The prisoner was sentenced to be
transported for life.

Catherine Murphy was convicted of concealing the
birth of her child. She was sentenced to one yea►'s
imprisonment.

Jane Bannon was indicted for the murder of her in-
fant child. She also was found guilty of concealing the
birth, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Thomas Wilkinson was indicted for the murder of
Maria Connor.

it appeared that the prisoner lived with the deceased,
and occupied the upper room of a small house in Man-
chester, the lower part of which was occupied by Jo-
seph Witherington and Ellen Hamson, who were living
together on the same terms. On the evening of Satur•
day, the 21st of June, the prisoner and deceased came
home intoxicated. The prisoner lay down on Wither-
ington's bed in the lower room, and fell asleep. The
deceased, it appeared, who' had already received a shil-
ling from him to procure supper, took this opportunity of
taking some more money out of his pocket. When he
awoke they both went up stairs. A quarrel ensued
about the money which the woman had taken, when
Wilkinson beat and kicked O'Connor in a most cruel and
cowardly manner. She soon after died.
A. verdict of " Guilty of Manslaughter" was re-
turned, and his Lordship sentenced the prisoner to
transportation for life.

CIVIL SIDE.-MORRIS V. BUTTERWORTH.

This was an action on a bill of exchange. The case,
which was against the drawer of the bill, was proved
in the usual way, and the defendant's handwriting was
sworn to by the bailiffpf the plaintiff's attorney, who had
become acquainted with the defendant's handwriting in
the course of some legal proceedings, in which the wit-
ness had officiated. From the cross-examination, it ap-
peared that the genuineness of the handwriting was dis-
puted, ant! the plaintiff's attorney was put in the box to
prove that the plaintiff had tailed with another party at
his office, to make some arrangement about the bill,
and had not then at all objected to it as a forgery.
The witness admitted he had asked to see his hand-
writing to it. It appeared also that two actions had
been commenced on the bill, one against the acceptor,
and one against the drawer. The acceptor had paid
the amount and the costs in that action. The present
action was brought for nominal damages to recover the
costs in the second.

Mr. Whiteley, the acceptor, was put in the box, who
stated that the body of the bill was in his handwriting,
and that be saw the signature of the drawer attached.
That it was not so attached by Mr. Butterworth, nor
by his authority, but by whom it was so attached he
would not say.
The Jury having returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
with nominal damages,

his LORDSHIP immediately inquired for a Magis-
trate ; and the attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. Butter-
worth, and the other parties who could give evidence on
the matter, were sent before him, his Lordship stating
that it was clear the witness had been guilty of forgery
—of uttering, knowing the instrument to be forged, and
of perjury ; and it was his duty to have it inquired into.
The witness Whiteley, however, who had stood in the
witness-box during Mr. Alexander's address, disappeared
during his Lordship's summing up, and when the parties
went before the Magistrate he was non est.