The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-03-29 00:00:00

HIGHWAY ROBBERY IN HAIGH PARK.

James Nelson (28) , Joseph Nelson (34), and Thomas
Latham (26), were charged with having, at Haigh, 'fe-
loniously and violently assaulted Mrs. Alice Woodcock,
putting her in bodily fear, and stealing from her person a
gold watch, chain and key, and one gold pencil case. The
two prisoners Nelson were charged with stealing the
articles from the prosecutrix, and Lathom was charged
with receiving the same, knowing them to be stolen.
Mr. Monk and Mr. Ovens conducted the case on the
part of the prosecution. Mr. Tyndal Atkinson defended
the two Nelsons. Lathom was undefended.

It appeared from the case, on behalf of the pro-
secution, that on the 31st of July last, about twelve
o'clock at noon, the prosecutrix, Mrs. Woodcock, who
is the wife of Mr. John Woodcock, banker, of
the Elms, Wigan, was walking among the plantations
in the grounds at Haigh-hall, near Wigan, the seat of the
Earl of Balcarres, when the prisoner, James Nelson, who
is one of the Earl of Balcarres' gamekeepers, came across
on to the carriage drive, as if intending, to meet her.
The prosecutrix, on sdeing the prisoner, who apparently
had nothing more on than a long shirt, turned back, and
in a few moments afterwards the prisoner took a round
and again met her. On coming up to prosecutrix, he de-
manded her to take her chain off her neck and give it to
him. She replied, "Do not take it from me, or you will
be taken up." Prisoner replied, " Oh, never mind
about that, give me what you have ;" and he then
took from her her watch, chain, and seal, and the
pencil case. The prisoner and Joseph Nelson were
immediately afterwards seen by several parties running
away from the direction in which the robbery was com-
mitted. A reward of £lOO was afterwards offered for the
discovery of the parties, £5O by the Earl of Balcarres, and
£5O by Mr. Woodcock. The prisoner Latham was sub-
sequently taken into custody, charged with being con-
cerned in the robbery, and on being apprehended he told
the police-officers that the prisoner Nelson robbed the
prosecutrix, and afterwards gave the proceeds to him,
telling him to take them to Liverpool and sell them. He
did so, but did not see the Nelsons any more, having got
on the spree in Liverpool, after he had sold the watch and
the other articles to a Mr. Abraham, a watchmaker, in
Oldhall-street, in this town. On this the police went to
Mr. Abraham's, and ultimately discovered that he had
purchased the property.
Mrs. Woodcock, the prosecutrix, and several other wit-
nesses, were examined in support of the foregoing state-
ment. Amongst other witnesses, Mr. Abraham, of Old-
hall-street, was also examined, and deposed to purchasing
the watch from the prisoner Latham.
In cross-examination by Mr. Atkinson, Mrs. Wood-
cock said that when the prisoner James Nelson was first
before her, a few days after the robbery was committed,
she could not speak positively as to his identity, but she
firmly believed he was the man.
Mr. Atkinson addressed the jury for the two Nelsons in
a powerful speech, confidently contending that the evi-
dence of identity against the prisoners was altogether in-
sufficient to justify a conviction, and that in all probability
the prisoner Latham had made the confession, and involved
his (Mr. Atkinson's) clients, in order to get hold of the
reward.

His Lordship having summed up, the jury retired for
about a quarter of an hour to consider their verdict. On
their return into court they gave a verdict of acquittal in
the case of the two Nelsons, and found the prisoner
Latham guilty.
A certificate of a previous conviction having been put
in against the prisoner, he was sentenced to fourteen
years' transportation.
MANSLAUGHTER AT MANCHESTER.
John Cull (24) was charged with having, at Manchester,
on the 28th of February, feloniously killed and slain
George Mayne. It appeared that a quarrel took place
between the deceased and the prisoner in a public-house
in Deansgate, which ended in a fight, during which the
prisoner knocked the deceased down, from the effects of
which he died. The prisoner was found guilty, and sen-
tenced to three months' imprisonment.
The Court rose shortly after six o'clock.

NISI PRIU S COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.)
In the first case, that of Dogherty v. Barton, which
was a matter of dispute between the landlord and tenant
of the Blackfriars Hotel, in Manchester, a reference was
agreed to.
BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.
RICHARDSON V. DELEMER.— Mr. Monk and Mr.
Wheeler, for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
and Mr. Tomlinson, for the defence.
The plaintiff was Miss Katherine Richardson, the niece
of Mr. Ostler, an architect's assistant or clerk of the
works, residing at Manchester ; and the defendant a
Frenchman, named Delemer, a mechanist.
Mr. Moxic said the plaintiff was the daughter of John
Richardson, who, during his lifetime, was a non-commis-
sioned officer, a serjeant. major in the Dragoon Guards, who
died when she was very young,leaving her to the care of Mr.
Ostler, who maintained and educated her. She was now
25 years of age • and the defendant, who had a long string
of names, Charles Henri Ferdinand Desiri Alexis Delemer,
by birth a Frenchman, who had been some time in this
country, was 32 ; and, therefore, there was no discre-
pancy in that respect. In 1846, Mr. Gautier, a professor
of languages, lodged at the house of Mr. Ostler, and
when the defendant, Delemer, came to Manchester, he
brought an introduction to Gautier. He frequently dined
at the house, and subsequently became an inmate of it
on Mr. Gautier going to France. Thus an intimacy
sprung up between the parties, and Delemer expressed
his desire to marry the plaintiff. Both Mr. and Mrs.
Ostler, in the first instance, objected on account of the
difference, in their language and tastes ; and it was ulti-
mately agreed that they should wait at least twelve
months. From that time Delemer became a frequent
visitor at the house, until Mr. Ostler went to Cheadle, a
short distance from Manchester. He used to visit her
every three or four days •, and he (Mr. Monk) would read
a letter which the defendant wrote to her about this pe-
riod, when he was residing at Radcliffe. At this time he
was negotiating with Messrs. Bird, of Radcliffe, for the
sale of a machine connected with calico printing. The
letter, which bore no date, was received in March, 1849;
at which time Delemer was received at the house of Mr.
Ostler, as the future husband of his niece; and he should
in justice state, that Mr. Delemer was not then very
familiar with the English language :

" DEAR KETTY,—I have been to Birdcliffe. It is very late;
but 1 have promised you to write some words this evening,
and I am glad to have promised it, for indeed, if I had not
some very good reasons to fear in writing, I would, I thinck,
do it so often that it is possible you would be tired of my let-
ters. But if my ignorance of your langued do not permit my
to expri me all my filling, for you at last I knwou one word
whic is sufficient. Ketty, I love thee more than I could tell
thee, even if I could speak in my own langued ; every time
I see you, I thinck impossible to love more than I do ; and
every time I leave you I find that I do love you more still.
And how would it not' be so ? Do you not yourself love my
more every day. Yes, my Ketty, or at last I think so, and
it is this idea whic mak my so happy, that my heart, some
time when I thinck of you, is so full that I can scarcety
refrain in my filing. But I must finisch ; my dearest you
have my first thincking this morning ; have my last good
night. I wish I could take from your pretty mouth the kiss I
give to your likeness. Ketty, when shall we have so sweet a
moment as yesterday ! my heart is full of the remembrance,;
and yet what is the remembrance near the reality.
" Good night my love—my only hope. Good night. Sa-
turday I shall be whit thee.

" A. DELEMER.
" Kiss aunt for me, will you ? I hope she is better to-day."
This proved a strong attachment, which would be shown
throughout the evidence, until a circumstance occurred
to which he would presently advert. Mr. Monk pro-
ceeded to relate that about the time of the French revolu-
tion in 1848, the defendant became in very distressed cir-
cumstances, owing, as he stated, to the misfortunes of
his father ; and he made the shabbiness of his appearance
an excuse for not visiting at Mr. Ostler's as usual. After
this, however, Delemer went to live with them for a short
time, and remained about six months, without being
called upon to pay for either board, lodging, or washing.
He left upon being reminded by Mr. Ostler that his visit
had beet somewhat too long, and in the autumn of that

year the plaintiff became pregnant. The defendant was
urged to marry her, and promised to do so, but subs&
quently became the husband of a Miss Mather, leaving
her, who had for many years been his affianced bride,
degraded woman. The defendant did not deny the Pre`
mice, but pleaded that he had been exonerated and r!:
leased from it. Having warned the jury that they shouts
not take into consideration in this action, anything for
the maintenance of the child, for whom the defendant'
it appeared, had made some provision, Mr. Monk state'
as regarded the position of the defendant, that be Wag ht
possession of £2OO a year from the sale of a patent 11,
to Messrs. Bird, beyond anything which be made by ,
own business. He was, therefore, in a position to
tain a wife in a condition of respectability, and it welt,.
be for the jury to say what damage the plaintiff had of
tained. She had been for months in a declining stele
health, and had not recovered since. They must look 4
e,
her as she was compared with what she is, and thee sill
what would be fair and reasonable damages.
and
Mrs. Anne Ostler, wife of Mr. Thos. Ostler, joiner B.
builder, of Manchester, said that the plaintiff, leathers;
Richardson, was her husband's niece by a former maul%
and had lived with him from seven years of age. Sh,e;" '"„ie
now 25 years of age. In 1845, they lived at Hararl,l
Manchester, and had a Mr. Gautier living with them, ant
the defendant, Mr. Delemer, a Frenchman, came to Tltla
Mr. Gautier. In March, 1847, Mr. Delemer becaroede
boarder at their house, on the request of Mr. Gautier• ept
took all his meals with the family, which consisted ofLei
husband, herself, niece, and Mr. Gautier. In May, leecse's
she observed something particular in his attentions to aelo
Richardson, and spoke to him about it, and told him it rl°
notconvenient for him to come into the kitchen and Price r,
sitting-room except at meal times, In June, of that year
Mr. Gautier left for France, and Mr. Delemer rev:o%,
with them, having still a private sitting-room of his new t
In June. Mr. Delemer used to follow her niece auejo
under pretence of learning the English language. ,be
being spoken to about it, he was evasive at first. At
time she sent her niece to Didsbury for a fortnight,„,snat;
whilst she was away, one morning he said to her, "f 1,55
you any commands for Miss Kate, madam ?"
asked what he meant ; and he said, " I think of gelegdia
far as Didsbury, to inquire after her health." She !id
not remonstrate, but said he was to give her love,
say she should be glad to see Miss Richardson on Saturtroit
at home. He returned in the evening, with a bouquet
flowers, which he said Miss Kate had sent, and said *be,
Kate would come home on Saturday. which she did. 'A
defendant appeared very much delighted to see her, 01%.
followed her about the house. Witness mentioned tb
matter to her husband on the Saturday. In July, thee,
defendant knocked at the door of her room, and when u;
came in be bowed to her. She asked him to take a see.
He said, " I love Miss Kate—will you permit ree,,`;
marry her ?" She said, " Mr. Delemer, you have taken
me by surprise ; I cannot give you an answer witilsno
speaking to my husband on the subject." He said.
you object, madam ?" and she replied, " No, but lmps7.
name it to my husband before I can say anything further''
your tastes and pursuits are different." She asked ill
if he had spoken to her niece. He said, " I hareo's
madam ; she has referred me to you." Her niece
out at the Time, but came in shortly afterwards,
defendant being still in the room ; and when she mule
he took her by the hand, and said, " I have named ti;
subject to madam." Miss Richardson did not say spot
thing, but smiled and looked agreeable; she did eet
object at all events. Prior to this she had said to defendant,'
" probably you expect we can give my niece something/10
her marriage ; we shall not during our lifetime." e,
replied, "Oh, I only want Miss Kate; I shall be in a Pe -t
tion to maintain her." Her husband was out at Cheadie!„
the time, and when he returned, Mr. Delemer met hilnel
the lobby, and threw his arms round him ,and embraced br,.;
Her husband was much surprised at the extra eordiell
'of the salutation, and asked what he meant, and sl;a
explained what had passed, and Mr. Delemer was con
in and said he hoped Mr. Ostler was agreeable. con
husband said, " you are a stranger and a foreigner. I
know very little about you or your circumstances. ,vit
should like you not to marry before the end of ttet(f
months." Mr. Delemer said " why not now ?"
husband asked " are you in circumstances to marry noW:ti
He said not at present, till he had received reraittarieet
from his father, and that he expected to receive tonlit
from Messrs. Bird for a patent, but her husband Ors
adhered to the twelve months, seeing that their manna to
and pursuits were different. In September they went et
live at Cheadle; shortly before which the defendant we"
to lodge elsewhere, but was in the habit of coming ,t,
0
their house. He also visited them at Cheadle during t".
time they were there—a year and ten months.
defendant came sometimes twice a week whilst in Met.
cheater, and never stopped away longer than a fortnight'
After the French revolution, in 1848, the defendant's Cl'
cumstances apparently became worse. He had gone to
live at Radcliffe in November or December, 1847, where
Messrs. Bird's works are. He told them about the net;
tiations which were going on about the disposal of t.e"
patent. In December, 1848, she went over to see
and invited him to spend Christmas day with them, 9%
he said, " I cannot, lam ashamed to go out." She said
to him, " you have written a letter to Kate, which PI,
almost broken her heart ; why have you written in such
a desponding manner ?" He made answer, " 011.,teenj
her to hate me." She said, " what do you mean ?'" 11-0
he replied, " 1 have done nothing but bring trouble upon
all who have ever loved me or have ever shown me an.
kindness. I have not had courage to give her up befer;s
but I ought to have done so." Witness said, "this
not the time for her to give you up when you areeler
trouble." On parting, he said, " Tell Kitty T love P
more than ever." In consequence of this, represent,
%,
tions were made to defendant's friends, and his silt
came over in the following January. Defendant epee
Christmas eve with them, but returned the same aer
In March his circumstances appeared to have improved'"
and he said he was in the wine trade. In August, 1849 r
the defendant called rather late, and said he should he
obliged to walk home, as he was too late for the traill'
She asked him why he did not remain in Manchesteri
and he said he did not de so on account of the expense e,
stopping at an hotel, and witness, under the ores"'
stances, offered him a bed at her house. In November!,
1849, he stopped at their house every night for some till*
In May he went away for a week. She remembered ?t,
being there one evening in June, when a conversatele
arose between her husband and him about his going •d
France. He said it was uncertain, and her husband ear,
then he had better provide himself with lodgings ellO
where, which he did in Clopton-street. He continues
ce
visit her niece till October, in which month her nieea
appeared dejected, but said they were going to be martini
immediately. In consequence of what she saw, she well
to Radcliffe on the following day, and found the defer
dant at Mr. Bird's works, and he said, " How do yell,urg
aunt ; how is Kitty and Mr. Ostler ?" She replied, `-ot
well as circumstances permit. Why do you ask ? Is 11. d,
Kate in the family way, end unmarried ?" He 011!el
" Yes, but we will be married immediately." She W`l
" What do you call immediately ? Will you be married
this week ?" He said, " I cannot leave the works te"
week ; I will come on Saturday evening, and speak
Mr. Ostler." He failed to do so, and, in conSeqUene
Mr. Ostler went over to Radcliffe the. following week'and the defendant returned with him in the evening. 0`
sat by the side of Miss Richardson on the sofa, and car'
ressed her, and said, " Can you tell me what time it 16,;;
I must return soon, or I shall be too late for the train'
with
Her husband thereupon said, " We must speak on till
subject you came about ; I want to know when you Wei;
marry Kate ; it is a most unfortunate thing, and t's"
sooner that takes place the better." Mr. Delemer re-
plied, " I cannot say jest now ; it may be one month 1t
may be three or more." Her husband said, " What ar:l
I to understand by that ; do you refuse to marry her ?
He said, " No, Mr. Ostler, I will marry her as soon 0
possible." Mr. Ostler said, " What is your objection t
marry her now ? Is it want of money ;ifit is I will lel?:
it you, and I will keep her and her child until you are tr
circumstances to do so ;
PT" but the defendant made it.
answer, and Mr. Ostler urged him to reply, and he '
" I cannot marry her now." Mr. Ostler pressed hirn
assign his reason, but he didn't speak, and her husball
said, " Are you going to prove a villain, seduce my niece
and thrust her a degraded: woman upon the world ?
have made you the fairest offer that one man can mass"
another ; am I to understand, after all my kindness toe
wards you, when you had not where to go to, that you 011
going to prove yourself a villain ?" Mr. Delemer said,
" Oh, I had my lodgings at Radcliffe." Afterwards he
folded nis arms, and said, in a very insulting manner'
" I will tell you what T think of you ; you are both more
in fault than myself." Her husband raised the poker'
and ordered him to leave the room instantly, and not
enter his doors again until he came to marry Miss Rich'
ardson. Mr. Delemer left the room and went to bet
niece in the kitchen. She followed him and heard hip,
say, " Go with me, Kitty, go with tee, Kitty ; thou an',
my wife, thou knows thou art." She said, " Kate, are
you married or not, tell me, and end this miserable sus'
pense." Kate answered, " No, aunt, no;" and Mr'
Delemer said, " Do you suppose that I attach any
im-
portance to that ridiculous ceremony that was ,
only made
to put money into priest's pockets." She said, I fear
not, but we attach much importance to that." He again
pressed Kate to go, and she (witness) said " she shall not
leave this house but as your wife ; why don't you male);
her ?" He said, " I have repeatedly told you I will:
Her niece afterwards went to Louth, in Lincolnshire,
where she was confined, and came back to them at the
end of January, 1851. and for some time after her return
she was ill with a bad cough, pain in her side, and general
debility. The defendant, when he visited them, did not
pay for his board. He had not visited them since Alise
Richardson returned from Lincolnshire.
Cross. examined.—Miss Richardson was with her bus`
band before their marriage. She went to school till she.
was thirteen years of age. She was boarded at Lynn, I'
Cheshire, before they were married. At the time the'
defendant, Mr. Delemer, was lodging at their house they
kept no servant, but had a charwoman, and an old elan
to clean knives and shoes. Herself and niece did the
ordinary household work. She sometimes made the beds
and waited at table. Her niece waited at table more
frequently than she did. Her niece prepared breakfast in
the morning. They had kept a grocer's shop since the
birth of the child, and her niece's name was over the
door. She assisted her niece to mind the shop. net
husband was clerk of the works to Mr. Radcliff, who re'
sided at Oldham. Mr. Gautier paid 10s. a week for
lodgings-245. for board and lodging ; and Mr. Delemer
paid the same. Mr. Ostler was here (in court). Before_g
their marriage she never had any differences with Mr'
Ostler about the child (Miss Richardson). She never
suggested that Miss Richardson should teach Mr. Vele'
mer English ; on the contrary, she objected, and said that
she would give him instruction herself when she had the
opportunity. She did not remember, on one occasiouci
after dinner, saying to the guests, " I think we he
better leave the young people together." She did not
remember suggesting anything to that effect. She he:
spoken of Mr. Delemer as the intended husband of he:,
niece, but did not remember formally introducing bins
such. She had seen Mr. Delemer give her niece a kissi
she turned her back, and left them in the room, but nee
for any length of time. Mr. Delemer did not say on the
occasion when Mr. Ostler lifted the poker to him, that she
should not have left them so much together. At the t
inmv
she went into the room and caught Mr. Delemer kisg,
her niece, she did not say it was impossible to keep 914 e
a character in her house. She did not see him kiss Nee
before the promise of marriage. He kissed her when, T;
came in and when he went out, and that was after tlTe
went to Cheadle. He never told her that lie felt!_te
danger of being thrown so unreservedly into the sosve
of her niece. She first discovered the pregnancy 01 b