Star.
London, England, 1825-08-20 00:00:00

SUM:JP!? ASSIZES.

LANCASTER, AUGUST 11.
BLEAZBY V. BRIDGE.
Mr. ALDERSON opened the pleadings, and stated that
this was an action brought by the plaintiff, a weaver,
against the defendant, the servant of a Mr. Culling-
worth, a Gentleman at Manchester, who was indebted
to the plaintiff, to recover damages for an assault com-
mitted upon him.
Mr. Sca eta= called the following witness:—
Mr. Cullingworth, the master of the defendant, was
called to prove the insulting language which passed be-
tween the parties. He heard something like a scuffle,
but he saw no blows struck.
In cross-examination the witness denied having kept
servants for the purpose ofevading the demands of his
creditors, and also to the violence used towards the
plaintiff. -
Serjeant CROSS—Noboiy who knows you, Sir, could
suspect that you kept set wants for any such purpose.
1 hose who know the firm to which you belong could
net believe any such statement for a single moment.
Ec,imination e%ltmed—The phiintiff was conducting
himself with great violence when a traveller came into
hilt shop. The plaintiff asked the defendant what he was
coming there for ? to which he replied, " You know
yr,u're a scoundrel !" upon which he was knocked down.
Nn furtlit-r evidence being adduced in support of the plaintiff's
...e, he was nonsuited.
NEGLECT GT ATTDRNIES.
Several cases were called on in the course of the day, but as no
:.•!ori.ies appeared to instruct Counsel, the cases were ordered to
r struck out of the list.
Nichard Williams and Hugh Quin were capitally in-
v"cted for la Tying disposed of, and put away a forged
note of the Bank of England for 51. knowing the same
tote forged.
At.. SCARLETr stated the case to the Jury, and called the follow-
ing witnesses.
Elizabeth Eves—ls servant at a public-house in Pres-
ton, and. remembers the prisoners having had something
to drink 'here on a Sunday evening, and called for
change of a five pound note. Witness offered the note
to Mrs. Eaton, who asked to have the names of the
prisoners. Change was given for the note.
Mrs. Eaton the landlady, and Eaton, the landlord, corroborated
the servant.
The note was here identified by Eaton, the landlord.
John Gillespie was called to prove that the prisoner
Williams was known •to him ; that he went to a but-
cher's shop to buy some meat; that he offered a N.
note to be changed, and that he got the change from
a public-house near the butcher's shop, and that,Q(tin
obtained a part of the change. Witness had sokilus-
picion of these persons, and returned to ask the land-
lord of the public-house if it were good ? he found
upon enquiry that it was bad, and went to the consta-
ble, Whar ton, who dispatched some officers to search
for the prisoners, and they were found at a public-house
in a direction totally different to that which they said
they were going to take.
Clarkson, the keeper of the public.house, and his wife, deposed
!o the receiving !;se £5 note, and NVharton, the constable, to the
apprehension of the prisoners.
Mr. Lee, Inspector of Notes to the Bank of England, proved
:hat the notes handed t• him were forgeries upon the Yank.
Both the prisoners were then found Guilty..
Two persons, of the names of David Charles and
Joseph Nicholson, were indicted on the same charge;
but after a few observat ons between Mr. SCARLLIT
and Mr. Justice BAYLEY, the case was act proceeded
in, and the prisoners were acquitted.
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.
Janes Hayward was capitally indicted fur having feloniciusly
killed and slain Jane, bit wife, on the :16th July last.
It appeared in evidence, that the prisorer and his
wife were walking home from Gorston, near Manchester,
in a state n?itller tipsy nor sober; that they walked
along for a certain distance as lovinly as husband and
wife are wont to do on such occasinns, but that all of
a sudden the wife fetched her espouse a blow, which so
kindled his wrath, that he fetched her another under
t. e ear, and of which she never lived to complain.—
After she fell, her husband called for her to arise, but
she made no answer to the call ; she was lifeless, and
no more. The husband again called her by the most
endearing names, but love and life had fled together,
and she spoke no more.
The surgeon who inspected the body said, in his opi-
nion the death of the deceased -was occasioned by the
blow under the left ear, which left a livid mark, and
produced a great extravasation of blood. r
The prisoner, in his defence, called the father of Ns
wife, who said that the prisoner had been a remarkably
,nood husband and father, and had always treated his
wife very well. In fact, the witness could not say whe-
ther he felt more at the sorrow of the prisoner or at the
death of his wile.—Verdict—Guilty.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, taking all the circumstances into his con-
•sideration, looking at the provocation the prisoner had received, and
at his character for good conduct, sentenced him to fourteen days'
imprisonment.