The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-27 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 25.
(Before Mr. Justice WsbuTstare.)
William Clapham was indicted for the wilful murder
of Abraham Tweedale, at Salford, in the month of
August, 1845, by striking him on the head with a piece
of iron.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Hulton conducted the prosecu-
tion; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.
It appeared from the statement of the Learned Coun-
sel, tLat at the summer assizes in the year 1845 the pri-
soner was arraigned on this charge before the Lord
Chief Baron, and appearing from his demeanour to be
insane, a jury was einpannelled to ascertain the fact.
They having found that he was insane, he was removed
under the warrant of the Secretary of State to Haydock-
lodge. During the last assizes it was intimated that the
prisoner had quite recovered his intellects, and he was
accordingly removed to the gaol at Kirkdale for the
purpose of taking his trial; but this removal having
taken place at a late period of the assizes, the trial was,
with the prisoner's consent, postponed till the present
sittings.
The appearance of the prisoner was that of a person
not yet restored to perfect mental health. His eye was
wild, and frequently, during the trial, seemed for some
seconds to be fixed on vacancy. He was apparently,
however, quite able to understand the nature of the in-
vestigation.
It appeared that a short time before this unfortunate
occurrence took place, the prisoner had been committed
to the gaol at Salford for two months, as a punishment
for some trifling offence ; and, in consequence of his
health not being very good, and certain singularities of
manner, which seemed connected with some affection of
the mind, he was removed to the hospital. From the
testimony of a person of the name of Hartley, who was
at that time also in gaol and an inmate of the hospital,
he was, about a quarter before one o'clock on the 2d of
August, standing at the dresser in the lobby, when he
heard a cry from the hospital. An old man of the name
of Vent was in the hospital also, and it was his voice the
witness heard, crying out, " William, William, a man's
murdered." The witness ran up into the room where
the prisoner was. The prisoner met him about a yard
from the door, having in his hand a long thin plate
of iron, which had formed part of one of the iron bed-
steads. Witness seized him. He did Lot speak, but
looked at witness very earnestly and steadfastly. His
face was all sprinkled with blood. Witness helped to
take him down into the yard. As the old man, Vent,
was descending the stairs he " chucked" the iron after
him. When he got into the yard he said, " Well, I've
done it at last." Found the deceased, Tweedale, lying on
the bed in the room in which the prisoner had been.
He was lying on his right side, with several cuts upon
his head. IVitness had seen the prisoner in the yard
shortly before this occurrence. He was swinging about
a pair of stockings.
From the testimony of a turnkey of the name of
Wright, in whose care the prisoner was placed after
this occurrence, it appeared that he was very communi-
cative, and persisted in talking to the witness, notwith-
atanding.the latter endeavoured, to induce him to desist.
He said that five years before he had been the best
workman in the parish ; and that if any one had told
him then that e e would be imprisoned two months it
would have killed him. He inquired if the man was
dead, and if he would he hung. Ile said it was drink
which had brought him to gaol. On hearing the voice
of the governor, who was coming up stairs, he flung
himself back in his Chair, and opened his mouth and
eyes as if he were an idiot.
It appeared from the statement of another turnkey,
who assisted in securing him, teat lie asked if the man
was dead ; and upon the witness telling him he didn't
know, he replied it mattered nothing, for he should have
murdered a man at Utley.
Mr. Davis, the governor of the gaol, said, that on
hearing the alarm, he ran to the hospital, and gave orders
for the prisoner to be handcuffed. The prisoner said,
" You need not du that, I wish to be hanged." His con •
duct had been very peculiar, from the time of his coming
into the gaol. lie had been, in consequence of his state
of health, put to wool-picking with a number of others.
He was constantly making use of foolish expressions and
gestures, which caused the other prisoners to laugh, and
he was removed to a workshop by himself. He was
found on one occasion with his braces round his neck,
pulling them tight. as it' attempting to strangle himself.
On another occasion he was found with his head cut
and bleeding very much, from knocking it against the
wall. He seed it was to ease his head. He was finally
removed to the hospital on Monday, 28th July.
From the statement of the superintendent of the
ward, the prisoner, while there, was very eccentric in
his manner. lie at one time refused to eat his food, on
the ground cf having had so many teeth drawn. He
said he was going mad, and refused to rise from his bed.
Mr. Stott, the surgeon, stated that the head of the de-
ceased had been nearly broken to pieces. There were
no fewer than fifteen distinct blows to be traced. The
prisoner showed many symptoms of weakness of mind.
Thinks he'was not of sane mind at the time.
Mr. Chalmers, surgeon at Kirkdale gaol, stated that
the prisoner, when committed to the gaol, was perfectly
insane, and remained so up to the time of his removal to
Ilaydock-lodge. •
Verdict—Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity.
Benjamin Barrett was indicted for the manslaughter
of William Seddon, at Kearsley.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Hulton appeared for the prose-
cution; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Monk.
The charge against the prisoner alleged in the indict-
ment was in substance that he was in the employment of
William Stott and others at a certain colliery, and was
employed to superintend an engine there for pump-
ing out the water from the workings, and thereby
keeping a free passage for the atmospheric air, and
thereby dissipating certain noxious gases, and espe-
cially carburetted hydrogen, which, in the absence of
such free passage, would accumulate in the colliery.
That the prisoner absented himself from the said col-
liery, and neg!ected to superintend the said engine, and
thereby prevented a free passage of the atmospheric air
through the workings, and thereby caused the said gases
to accumulate in the workings, and caused large quan-
tities of carburetted hydrogen and other gases, which had
so accumulated in the colliery, to surround the deceased,
who was a collier employed in the said colliery, and
using a lighted candle therein, had caused the said gases
so caused to surround the deceased to explode and burn
the deceased, giving him divers mortal wounds, of which
ho died.
It appeared from the statement made in opening the
case, that at Kearsley there is a colliery belonging to
W. Stott and others. Connected with the pit which is
now worked is an old mine, and there run between them
certain passages for the admission of air to ventilate the
mine. At the old pit is the engine in question, which
is used for pumping out the water in the passages of that
mine, which would otherwise rise so high as to prevent,
the passage from the old to the new mine, and thus cut
off the necessary supply. The prisoner absented himself
for three days from his duties in attending the engine.
Itvconsequence the water accumulated, cut off the supply
of fredh air, and the result was, that when the deceased,
with others, descended into the mine with a candle, an
explosion took place which caused his death.
On the opening of the case, Mr. MONK objected that
the facts stated, it proved, would not show any indict-
able offence. It is a mere nonfeasance, and that a mere
breach of a civil contract. A mere nonfeasance cannot
make a person criminally liable, except when it is the
neglect to discharge a duty imposed by law, as of a
parent. to support an infant child. To make any one, in
other cases, liable to a criminal charge, there must be an
act done. s
In reply, it was urged that this case was similar to
that of a carter who leaves his cart in the street, or stops
to speak to a companion, and the horse, in consequence,
runs over a person.
His LORDSHIP said that in that case the cart was set
in motion by the party's negligence. Here there was
nothing of the kind. There was a mere abstaining frotn
doing anything. In the case of driving a cart, the law
imposes on the person who undertakes to drive it the
the duty of taking care of it.
The Learned COUNSEL suggested the case of a porter
on a railway, where he had neglected the proper placing
of the points, by which the carriages ran off the road
and a party was killed.
His LORDSHIP said that in that case there had pro-
bably been an act clone by the party in at first placing
the points in the wrong direction.
After some further argument, his Lordship decided on
hearing the evidence, and on the facts appearing as above
shortly stated his Lordship stopped the case.
Verdict, Not Guilty. •

Richard Wignall was indicted for the wilful murder of
his wife, Kitty Wignall, at laiverpool, on the 15th of
Jur.e last.

Mr. bergesnt Wilkins and Mr. Blair conducted the
prosecution. The prisoner was defended by Mr. At-
kinson.

It appeared that the prisoner and his wife occupied a
cellar i❑ Gore-street, in Toxteth-park, in this town, and
on the day in question he had had some dispute with a
woman of the name of Bogue respecting some panes
which he was to have put in her cellar. He afterwards
went into his own cellar, where his wife was, and the
neighbours heard a noise as of some parties quarrelling.
One of them looked in and saw him striking with his
fist towards the bed, and the deceased was then crying
out " I'm not a w-; I'll never give in to be called
a w-." A Mrs. Moreton, who lived adjoining,
went in, and he was then striking the deceased with
his fist as she sat on the bed. He took up a
stool and struck her twice on the head with
it. Mrs. Moreton succeeded in getting it from him,
and the deceased sat down on a chair. The pri-
soner knocked her down and kicked her on the head.
Mrs Moreton then left the cellar, taking the prisoner's
two children with her, and the prisoner then came to
the door and threw some water over the children who
were assembled, having been attracted by the disturb-
ance. The deceased tried to get out, but he would not
let her and closed the dour. Some of the parties stand-
ing round opened it, and the prisoner was then seen to
kick the deceased as she lay on the ground, and to strike
her with a piece of wood. He came out shortly after,
threw up his cap, and said he didn't care for any man in
Gore-street. On the neighbours going in, the poor
woman was found in her last agonies, and died in a fow
minutes. There was found to be a cut on the back of
the head, an abrasion on the temple, and various bruises
on other parts of the body. None of them were in them-
selves dangerous, but, on an internal examination, there
was found to be a large effusion of blood in the brain,
which had been produced by external violence, and had
caused her death.

Mr. Atkinson addressed the jury for the defence.
His LORDSHIP summed up ; and the jury, after being
some time in deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty
of manslaughter, adding, that it was their unanimous
opinion it was one of the most aggravated cases that had
ever come before a jury.
To be transported for life.
The Court, on the civil side, was engaged the whole
day with the trial of a question of fraudulent preference,
which was of no public interest.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Jane Gill, 28, described as a widower, and John Jones,
38, tailor, were indicted for feloniously stealing ten sove-
reigns, ten half-sovereigns, and other moneys, the pro-
perty of Elizabeth Berkley, in her dwe:ling-house, and
Thomas Webb, doll-maker, 29, was indicted for assisting
the other prisoners to commit the robbery.
Mr. Baldwin prosecuted, Mr. Payne defended Webb,
and Mr. O'Brien the other prisoners.
From the evidence adduced, it appeared that the
prosecutrix is the keeper of a brothel in Whitechapel,
and the prisoners Gill and Webb had cohabited together
and occupied a room in her house, but they had left
shortly before the robbery. On the day in question Gill
went to the house of the prosecutrix and told her that
she had met a friend who had just come from India,
and she wished the best bed-room to be kept for their
accommodation, and she at the same time particularly
requested that Webb should not be told of her pre-
tended infidelity. At night, accordingly, Gill and
Jones came to the house, and two shillings' worth of
brandy were immediately sent for, and the prisoners
mixed some brandy and water, of which the prosecutrix
and her servant partook, and there was strong ground
for supposing that the liquor was drugged, for imme-
diately after they had drunk it both the prosecutrix and
her servant became insensible, and were quite un-
conscious of what afterwards occurred. When, how-
ever, they came to themselves in the morning, it was
discovered that a cash-box, containing the money in
question, had been stolen from the bed-room of the
prosecutrix, and it also appeared that the bed-room en-
gaged by the prisoners had not been occupied, and the
candle-stick that had been given to them in the evening
was found in the bed-room from whence the cash-box
and money had been stolen. The evidence against the
prisoner Webb merely went to the extent of showing
the nature of his connexion with the female prisoner,
and also that they were all together on the night of the
rubbery, and that he parted from the other two just
before they proceeded to the house of the prosecutor,
and that he was again seen in their company on the
fallowing morning very shortly after the robbery must
have been committed. When the prisoner Jones was
subsequently taken into custody, a pair of spectacles,
which the prosecutrix identified as a portion of the
articles stolen on the night of the robbery, were found
in his pocket.
The COURT having intimated an opinion that there
was not sufficient evidence to connect the prisoner Webb
with the transaction, the jury returned a verdict of Not
Guilty with respect to him.
Mr. O'BRIEN then addressed the jury on behalf of the
other prisoners, and called witnesses to prove that the
spectacles that were found upon him had been in his
possession a long time before the robbery. The evi-
dence upon this point was not, however, b) any means
of a satisfactory character.
The RECORDER having summed up, the jury returned
a verdict of Guilty against Gill and Jones, and they
were sentenced to be transported for ten years.