The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-06 00:00:00

1V OR THERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, April&

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PArrr:soN.)
CHARGE or Mani[ .—Sarah Swift, aged 19, was indicted
for the wilful murder of Elizabeth M'GIiI, at Liverpool.
Mr. Drinkwater appeared as counsel for the prosecution,
and Mr. James defended the prisoner.

Harriet Robinson said, she is a single woman, lived in
Shaw's-alley, and knew the deceased, who is a girl of ill
fame. The prisoner is also one of that character. Recol-
lects being in Barber's public-house, where the deceased, the
prisoner, and several other girls were. There were sailors in
the dancing-room. Elizabeth WGill asked, " What do you
want there; why don't you go to your own house?" When
prisoner replied, "That s she could," and left the house
with Ann Kelly. Witness went out, and when she returned
the beer-house was closed, about eleven o'clock. Met
Elizabeth M‘Gill near Sparling-street. She was crying, but
not drunk. Elizabeth M‘Grill struck Sarah Swift, who said
we had better go home before we got into cola-hole. The
prisoner, who had a knife, ran at her. Sarah Swift said to
Nancy Allen, who was present, that she would serve witness
in the same way. Gave prisoner in charge to a policeman,
who brought the prisoner and Nancy Allen to the house.
Knew the knife, and pointed out the place where the knife
was thrown away after the perpetration of the act. The knife
was open, and covered with blood.
Cross-examined—ls about 22 years of age, and leading her
present life about six months. Had lived in Liverpool six
years, but not with her father for the last six months.
Sarah Munro—Witness refused to kiss the book, but the
Judge threatened to send her to prison direct. She then
complied, and was then admonished by his Lordship to tell
the truth. She spoke to some of the facts on the case,
and then fainted, and it was dee►7red necessary to remove
her. .

—Ann Power—Lives is Shaw's-alley., and remembers the
19th of December. She heard the prisoner say she " would
serve out deceased in some dark corner." It was about ten
minutes past twelve when she met deceased in Mason-
street. There were two foreigners with her, and shortly
after she heard the deceased cry out " murder." She (wit-
ness) ran up, and the foreigners, who held up deceased,
went away. At this moment she did not perceive anything
was the matter with her. At the time deceased was
wounded there were several men and women near besides
the policeman.
In answer to a question by the jury, the witness stated
that the conversation at Barber's was carried on in the spirit
of anger.
Other Witnesses were called, but their testimony was a
mere repetition of that already detailed.
John Bold Hyams—lss surgeon, and was called in on the
morning of the 20th of December to see deceased. He bad
made 'a post mortem examination, and the depth of the
wound was about three inches. It extended to the thorax,
and the knife which was submitted to his inspection would
cause such a wound. The wound was about one inch and a
half wide, and deceased might have cried out " murder,"
but it was impossible, in his opinion, that she could have
lived more than half an hour.
After the summing up of the Learned Judge, the jury re-
tired for a short time, and on their return found a verdict
of Guilty of manslaughter.
Sentence, to be transported for life.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)

HUTCHINSON V. TII6 LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.
The Attorney-General (Mr. Knowles), Mr. Crompton, and
Mr. Aspland, were counsel for the
Mr. Martin, Mr. Brandt, and Mr. John Henderson, for tho
defendants. plaintiff; and Mr. Baines,

This was an action brought by Mr. Hutchinson, a gentle-
man residing near Liverpool, but formerly living at Bury,
and arose out of an action tried at the last summer assizes, in
which the same parties were plaintits and defendants. On
that occasion a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and
that verdict had bean confirmed by the Court above. The
grounds of that action were the following :_The East Lan-
cashire, late the Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway
requiring a piece of land belonging to the plaintiff, had an
inquisition to assess the value of the property, and without
requiring the plaintiff to explain his title, paid the money,
about 4,0601., into the • hands of the Accountant-General of
the Court of Chancery, without giving any notice thereof.
After this the Company took possession of his land, notwith-
standing that they had notice to the contrary, and the plain-
tiff threatened them with a prosecution for peealties in case
they did. Mr. Hutchinson then brought his action of eject-
ment, which was tried at the last summer assizes, for the
amount of money which had been awarded to him he not
choosing to apply to the Accountant-General. In this action
he was successful; and the Company taking the case before
the Court above, the finding of the Liverpool jury was con-
firmed. A writ of possession was then issued, and Mr.
Hutchinson again took possession of his land. The Company
then paid him the money awarded to him; and after he had
been in possession ten days the Company took possession of
the land. By two sections of the Bury and Rossendale Rail-
way Act, a penalty of 251. per day is imposed during such
time as • they were wilfully and wrongfully in possession of
the land. These penalties amounted to 6,6001.
Witnesses were called, who proved' the principal part of the
statements of the Learned Counsel; and the other portions
were made out by documentury evidence.
Mr. BAINES submitted that there was no question for the
consideration of the jury. According to the true construc-
tion of the Act of Parliament there must have been a wilful
taking possession.
His LORDSIIIr said, that as the case at present stood, there
was nothing to explain their acts.
Mr. KNOWLES—If they entered into possession bont2 fide,
I would submit that they are liable.
Mr. HENDERSON, for the defendants, said he would submit
that, under the 159th section of the Act, the payment of the
deposit relieved the company from the penalty.
Mr. Baines then addressed the jury, contending that the
company throughout all their proceedings had been actuated
by the most honourable feeling towards the plaintiff, who,
on the contrary, had taken every means in his power to
throw every obstacle in the way of the railway company
taking possession of the land for the purpose of constructing
the railway, refusing to give any explanation of his title or
any matter at issue, and the company then did, with perfect
good faith, pay the money into the Court of Chancery, there
to await his making good his title, and when he had done
that, the company would have to poav f
tthee
Aexpenste of
getting the money out of the hands
thee decision
lor
to
lithant
General. When the Court above confirmed
the jury at the former assizes, Mr._ Grundy,go
to Liverpool, and there offered Mr.
the company, went
If solicitor the 3 080/ which
Richardson and Mr. Miller,
'slid Mr. Grund r,
they very quietly pocketed, a _ made them
t interest from the I.ebruary pre-
a tender of four per ces
pre-
vious. Tbey, however, declined to accept the latter amount,
and now they sought to make the railway company pay the
sum of 6,606/. in the fain penalties,.
e of for retaining
pos-
session of the land icons the day when they entered upon it up
to the day when the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench
was formally pronounced.
Mr. John Grundy, solicitor to the Company, was examined
at considerable length, and said that the course taken by the
company was adopted by the advice of counsel.
•his RUNUP asked the
oft
Upon this, o ey-General whe-
ther he could change the appearance of the fact ? and upon
the Learned Gentleman replying in the negative, his Lord-
ship ruled in favour of the defendants, leave being given to
the plaintiff to move the Court above.
April 4.
The criminal business having been all concluded yesterday,
both the Leared Judges sat this day to try cases.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice PkrrEsost.)
rILKINGTON AND OTHERS V. SCOTT AND OTHERS.
This was an action on the case, brought by Messrs. Richard
Pilkington and William Pilkington, of St. Helen's, glass
manufacturers, against Messrs. Scott, Holmes, Briggs, and
Brown, also glass manufacturers, of South Shields, to recover
damages of the latter for having, as the declaration of
the plaintiffs alleged, unlawfully harboured, detained, and
kept in their employ certain persons, namely,
Joseph Lee,
William 31'Connell, and Henry Dodds, servants of the
• tiffs, who had previously unlawfully left the service of
PlaL". ;,stiffa.
the )ole,- ..,ton was counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. John
Mr. Cron., *cr. Row for the defendants.
Henderson and evidence, that at the latter end of
It appeared from the '•oned as the servants of the
last year the three men menu._ their employ, and that
plaintiffs had thought proper to lea.. -` that, although
they did so under the impression or pretes.. -selves to
they had entered into a contract binding thew._ —.-
serve the plaintiffs, the contract was invalid, and that the.
fore they had a right to quit the service. The servants w -
called as witnesses for the defendants, and they stated,asere
main ground for their leaving the employ of , the plaintiffs,
a
that the latter had paid them less than they were entitled to,
and had thus violated or failed in the performance of their
part of the contract. The three servants OR quitting the
worbos of the plaintiffs, offered thAir
oervieee to the defend-
II