The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-24 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 21.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAIC)
Charles Lyon was indicted for maliciously shooting at
John Wainwright, with intent to do him some grievous
bodily harm.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner was
defended by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.
It appeared from the statement of the prosecutor, who is
assistant game-keeper to the Earl of Derby, that on the night
of the 15th of April last, he, in company with another man,
was drinking at a public-house in the neighbourhood of
Knowsley, and about a mile from Prescot. The public-
house is known by the name of the Eagle and Child. About
half-past nine lie heard several shots fired, and went out
shortly after by the back door, for the purpose of ascertain-
ing the cause. As soon as he got through the gate some one
fired a shot at a distance of about sixteen yards, and he was
immediately struck by several shots, one of which penes
trated his hand and the other his leg. The landlord of the
Eagle and Child ran out immediately on hearing the shot,
and saw a man making off along the Liverpool-road. He
pursued the man, but the latter got over a wall into one of
Sir Thomas Birch's plantations, and escaped. On searching
the wood the next day, some footmarks were found, which
were said to correspond with the shoes found upon the pri-
soner when he was taken into custody. Some time after a
small gun, the stock of which was moveable, was found in
the same plantation.
It appeared from the testimony of other witnesses, that at
an earlier part of the evening the prisoner was in comp ,sn
with another man at the Rose anti Crown public-house,
little distance from the Eagle and Child. He had a gun,
which was, by a crack in the stock, identified as that which
was afterwards found in the plantation. He produced it in
two parts from his pocket. He loaded it. While he was
putting the shot in his companion said, "Put some of the
others in, they'll tell a tale." He put in two kinds cf shot.
He said he would shoot game in spite of any body. When
he was leaving the house he said, "Let either Birch or
Wainwright molest us on the road, and we'll do their job
for them." Another witness, while on his way from Prescot
to Huyton, saw the prisoner leaning against the wall of Sir
Thomas Birch's plantation, and asked him, what he was
doing there. He said he was looking for a hare. The wit-
ness told him that Birch, the keeper, was out, and he replied
that he did not care—he would have a hare, and do Birch
afterwards. It appeared that in a door near which the pro- '
secutor was standing when the shot was fired were found as
many as 25 shots, which had apparently formed part of the
charge.
Mr. Sergeant WitasEes addressed the jury for the defence,
and they retired to consider their verdict.
After a consultation of three hours, they returned a verdict
of Guilty. To be transported for 14 years.
Charles Greenwood, Thomas Lawley, John Greenwood, and
Joseph Mills, were indicted for having robbed James Green-
wood at at Todmorden and Walsden, on the 17th of May.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were
not defended by counsel.
It appeared from the statement of the prosecutor, who is a
very old man, that he was watchman in the service of Mr.
Robertshaw, who has a mill near Todmorden. While going
the round of the premises, he heard some one kick the coal-
house door. He went out into the road, and he there saw
four men in white smockfrocks, and asked them who had
been knocking. They said they had not. The old man
said it could have been nobody else; on which high words
ensued, and one of the prisoners, Lawley, said, " D—n
him, smash his lantern." The men then attacked him.
One broke his lantern, another knocked him down, and
they beat him as he lay upon the ground, until he was
nearly insensible. He cried out " murder," and some young
men who were in the neighbourhood running up, saw four men
in smockfrock, beating sonic person who was lying upon the
ground. The men ran away. The old man was then found
to be seriously injured ; his face was much bruised and
covered with blood, and his hat was gone. This, however,
was found at some distance, where it was supposed it had
been taken by his assailants. The prosecutor spoke very
doubtingly as to the identity of the prisoners. It appeared,
however, that a short time before, the four persons at the
bar had been all together at the beer-house of a Mr. Green-
wood, at Clough, near Walsden, where they had a quantity
of ale, for which they did not pay. They had all white smock-
frocks on when they left, and they went in the direction of
the mill of Mr. Robertshaw. They left about eleven o'clock.
A sergeant of police, who was at Mr. Robertshaw's soon
after the attack, went to the Navigation Inn, where he found
the prisoners. They had come in very shortly after eleven
o'clock. There was then blood on Charles Greenwood'a
smockfrock. He said he had been wrestling, and he added
that they had punched Robertshaw's coal-house door as he
passed, and he had knocked down a man who came out. The
officerF who apprehended the prisoners found blood upon Law-
ley 's smockfrock, as well as on Greenwood's. Greenwood
said the blood was Tom's (Lawley's), with whom he had had
a scrimmage.
At the close of the case for the prosecution, it was intimated
by Mr. Brandt that he did not think the evidence could sus-
tam the charge of robbery, but he submitted the parties
might be convicted of the common assault.
His LORDSHIP thought that this was not the case, and
that to convict the prisoners of the assault there must be
evidence of an inchoate attempt to commit the felony, which
fails, or in which they were interrupted, before the felony is
complete. It never could be the intention of the Legislature,
where a party had committed an assault, and there was on
the evidence no pretence for saying a felony had been
intended, that the party might be charged with the felony
and convicted of the assault, by which course he would be
exposed to a very different punishment from that which
would have been inflicted on him had he been charged with
the assault alone.

His LORDSHIP, after consulting with Mr. Justice CRESS-
WELL, ruled according to the opinion so expressed, and the

prisoners were Acquitted generally.
Matthcw Sherlock Hilton, aged 19, a young man of very
respectable appearance, and who seemed throughout the trial
to be in the greatest agony of mind, was indicted for uttering
a forged receipt of one John Woodcock, knowing it to be
forged.
. . . .

kr. Brandt conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was
defended by Mr. J. Pollock.
The prisoner, it appeared, was in the employment of the
British and Foreign Copper Company, at Sutton, near St.
Helen's. It was the prisoner's duty to check the weekly
accounts. He was so engaged on Saturday, the 4th July,
and among other accounts handed one in from John Wood-
cock, for 71. 9s. 2d., a mark, which purported to be the signa-
ture of John Woodcock being attached. The cashier refused
to cash it, as he bad no proof of its being Woodcock's mark,
without an attesting witness. The prisoner went out with it
and came back with the signature of John Shenton, the fore-
man, attached as a witness to the mark of Woodcock. It
appeared from the testimony of Woodcock and his partner
that the amount of his account in the week in question was
only 21. 7s. 2d., and this sum he received from the prisoner.
He had never signed the account in question, and knew
nothing of its being presented.
Mr. PoLLocx, for the prisoner, contended that the charge
of uttering with intent to defraud Woodcock must fall to the
ground, as the prisoner had actually paid to him all the
money which was due to him. As to the uttering at all, with
a guilty knowledge of its being a forgery, he submitted that
without the testimony of Shenton, who was not called, they
could not be satisfied of that fact. There was no question
as to the genuineness of Shenton's signature ; he, at. all events,
believed the mark to be Woodcock's mark, and attested it
accordingly, and he submitted it was imperative upon the
prosecution to have called him to show the circumstances
under which his attestation was appended.
His Lonnsme in summing up commented on the absence
of Shenton, who it was clear was a most material witness.
Verdict—Not Guilty.
_ .

The prisoner was then indicted for obtaining money under
false pretences. It appeared he had handed in a list of per-
sons to whom wages were due, amounting to 41. Ils., re-
ceived the money, and appropriated it to his own use, there
being in fact no such wages due to the individuals in ques-
tion.

Verdict—Guilty. Sentence deferred.
(Before Mr. Justice CitEsswELL.)
RAWSON V. ANTHONY.

This was an action by the plaintiff, formerly a hosier in
Manchester, but now a sharebroker, to recover from the de-
fendant the value of fifty shares in the North-Eastern Rail-
way Company, which had been sold to him in October last.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Tomlinson for the plaintiff; Mr.
Martin and Mr. Cowling for the defendant.
_ _

It appeared that on the 13th of October last the plaintiff
ordered his brokers, Messrs. Barton and Birchall, to buy 50
shares in the North-Eastern Railway at 4/. 10s. per share,
1/. 7s. 6d. having been paid as a deposit, and they being at
that time at 3/. 2s. 6d. premium. In obedience to these in-
structions they purchased 50 shares from Messrs. Ridsdales,
and the usual sold notes passed between the parties, but no
specific time was mentioned for the delivery of the shares,
which were purchased generally " for the account," the
shares being in fact at that time called in by the provisional
committee of this company, with a view to an issue of new
shares. On the 15th Mr. Rawson directed his brokers to
sell the shares, which they accordingly did to the defendant,
who was then, and is now, a broker; and who, as usual,
made the purchase without mentioning the name of his
principal. It appeared he several times applied for the
shares, but it was not until the middle of December
that an invoice of the shares was sent with the usual
intimation that they were then ready for delivery.
Previous to that time he had written to Messrs. Barton
and Birchall stating that unless the 50 shares were delivered
in three days he would buy in the shares against them, ac-
cording to the rules of the Manchester Stock Exchange.
It appeared, however, that after the receipt of the invoice, he
sent his clerk with the money to Messrs. Barton and Birch-
all's office, but they were not prepared to hand over the
shares. On the evening of the 23d of December he called at
the office and tendered the money, demanding the shares.
The principals had then left the office, but he accompanied
a Mr. Williamson, their clerk, to the office of the Messrs.
Ridsdales, for the purpose of obtaining them • but, it being
after five o'clock, his application was unsuccessful. lie then
wrote to say he would nut have the shares at all. They
were tendered to him the next morning, but he refused to
accept them.
A good deal of correspondence between the parties was
read, and in one of these letters, after the defendant had re-
pudiated the shares, he says, " lam advised you have no
claim against me, either by the rules of our society or by the
law of the land. If you think otherwise, you will take your
own course; but you have a clear case against my principal,
Mr. Dixon, and you may summon me as a witness. '
For the defence it was contended that the shares were not
tendered within a reasonable time, and a number of witnesses
were called in support of this view of the case.
His Lounsiur, in summing up, said he had never sat with
so little satisfaction to himself to investigate the facts of a
case as he had done in some of the cases which had been
tried during the present assizes. The jury had been occupied
a long time in the investigation of some of these cases, but
if the disclosures which had been made would have the effect
of bringing people to their senses, the time of the Court
would not have been uselessly employed. His Lordship
commented in strong terms on the letter of the defendant
respecting Mr. Dixon, and observed that it might be very
distressing to the jury to investigate such matters as these,
but he hoped the public would be the gainers.
The jury, after being ebout an hour in consultation, found
that the shares were not ready to be delivered within a rea-
sonable time.—Verdict for the defendant.