The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-10-22 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL MICHAELMAS SESSIONS.

Yesterday the Quarter Sessions of the Peace for this
borough commenced at the Court-house, before James Clarke,
Esq., Recorder. The number of prisoners on the calendar
for felony was seventy-nine ; those for misdemeaors and as-
saults, five. The offences charged were chiefly of the usual
class, of felonies including several robberies and embezzle-
ments to large amounts; amongst the cases of violence we
regret to say, there were several of a very aggravated nature,
amongst which were some instances of stabbing with danger-
ous weapons.
The following gentlemen were sworn (with the exception of
one who was affirmed) of the
GRAND JURY:
Ed. Molyneaux, Esq, Foreman Richard Houghton, Esq.
George Booth, Esq. Michael Hnmble, Esq.
Wareham Jennett Brown, John Job, Jun. Esq.
Esq. Wm. Laycock, Esq.
Christopher Bentham, Esq. Thomas M`Tear, Esq.
Edward Cox, Esq. Edward.Molyneux, Esq.
Hugh Craig, Esq. William Maxwell, Esq.
-James Duncan. Esq. John Tomlinson, Esq.
Maxmillian Fischer, Esq., Isaac Worthington, Esq.
John Finch, Jun., Esq. Henry Whittaker, Esq.
John Greenshield, Esq. Nicholas Crook, Esq.
Thos. Duckworth Headlam, George Johnson Wainwright,
Esq Esq.
The RECORDER, then charged the Grand Jury. He com-
menced by stating that he was extremely happy that the attend-
ance of gentlement as Grand Jurors was numerous, inasmuch
as the business that would be laid before them was of great im-
partance, and would require their most attentive and dilli-
gent consideration. He should first draw their attention to

the case of William Kelly, who was Charied
stolen some money from his employers. The prisoner,
although he had been a confidential servant of the prosecutors
for the period of three years, broke open a money drawer,
and abstracted the money; and the probability was that he
had previously taken property in a similar manner. He did
not apprehend that they would have any difficulty in coming
to a decision on this case, but he had pointed it out, as the
offence was one which was on the increase, and it became
necessary, by all possible means, to put it down. The next
case he should advert to was that of Elizabeth Pewson, who
was charged with attempting to suffocate her infant child,
with intent to murder it. If they found the allegations in
the infoimations made out by the evidence, it would be their
duty to find a true bill against her, and if she was found
guilty, the punishment would be transportation for any term.
The petty jury if the circumstances warranted such a verdict
could afterwards, however, find her guilty of the minor of-
fence, namely a common assault, which would subject her to
imprisonment not exceeding three years. He next called their
attention to the case of Mary Fennelly and Richd. Fennelly, the
former charged with having stolen a large amount in sove-
reigns and half-sovereigns, together with a bill of exchange;
the latter with having received the sovereigns and the bill,
knowing them to have been stolen. 111 this case the charge
for the prindipal felony was against the junior prisoner, the
daughter of the other, and a child ; but the greater offender
was the father, who had doubtless induced her to commit
the theft, and had received the property. It would appear
that the receiving did not take place within the borough,
but it would be their duty, nevertheless, to take cognizance
of the offence and to enquire where the offence took place.
There was also another case, that of Ellen Williams, who
stood charged with having stolen two Bank of England
notes of the value of £lOO each ; a £5O Bank note and a
sovereign the property of a Mr. 'Kenyen. Fortunately in
this case all the money was recovered, it having, been found
under her head in the bed where she lay, where she had
placed it. In the case previously referred to, the parties were
not so fortunate, no part of the amount taken having been
found. In the case of John Quinn, .and John Meredith,
who were charged with stealing some glasses, the offence of
the elder prisoner (Meredith), in particular, was of a serious
nature, the other (Quinn), being comparatively young. This
case would require their utmost attention. The elder priso-
ner who was fifty-two years of age had it appeared been
tampering with the, lad who was an apprentice. He even
had the audacity to take a shandray to the place where
the felony was committed, with a view to faciliate the
robbery of a warehouse, under very agravated circum-
stances. There were also two cases of stabbing with,
dangerous instruments, which would demand their attentive
consideration,--an offence which had, unhappily, of late been
on the increase in this country. , Liverpool, he lamented to
add, must take its share of the odium and disgrace attached
to the resort of a practice hitherto little known in these
realms. The legislature had properly passed enactments to
punish the offence in its several degrees. Stabbing with
intent to murder, was met by capital punishment : stab.
bing with intent to maim, or to do grievous bodily harm,
was punishable with transportation either for life, or for the
term of fifteen years. It was a crime which especially
required the strong arm of the law. Judges ought not to
adopt false notions of humanity ; and he felt some astonish-
ment that the views of the legislature had not in some recent
cases been carried out. For himself he would say, that if
the malicious and deadly intent were made out against any
of the prisoners, he should feel it to be his duty to visit the
offence with that degree of wholesome severity which alone
promised to put a stop to the practice. He next adverted to
the too frequent custom of shopkeeper and others, hanging
out goods in a manner tending to tempt parties to steal them.
He had great pleasure in stating, that there was a provision
in a recent act, (3rd Victoria) imposing a penalty on all per-
sons who shall hang out, or expose goods-outside of their
shops or premises. The hanging up of goods offered a great
temptation, and grand juries had from time to time noticed
the practice as an inducement to the commission of crime.
The best course that could be adopted, was to cut off the
temptation, and every opportunity should be taken to do so.
That course alone was consistent with humanity, was accor-
dant with the law, and best calculated to ensure the safety
of property. If there were parties so headstrong that they
would still persist in exposing their goods in a tempting man!
ner., they were exceedingly blameable ; and he trusted the
police, whose general exertions in the discharge of their duty,
were worthy of high commendation, would keep a strict look
out, and take care that the provisions of the law were duly
enforced. It did not occur to him that there was any other
point upon which it was necessary for him to remark, and
they (the jury) would therefore retire, and decide on the
bills that would be laid before them. The jury then retired.
David 13roaerzc1, aged Lt, pleaded guilty to a charge of
stealing a watch, chain, &c. the property of the Rev. Mr.
Cardwell. It will be remembered that the offence was com-
mitted in open day, the prisoner having snatched the watch
from the prosecutor's pocket. The latter pursued him, and
ordered him to return the watch, which he did. The pri-
soner said that he was driven to the act by want. It was
stated in his behalf that he was quite lame. He was sen-
tenced to be imprisoned, and kept to hard labour, for twelve
months.

Margaret Clare stood charged with having stolen four
half-crowns and a sixpence, the property of John Jebb.
John Jebb.—On the 13th of October, I was walking in the
upper part of Islington; when I met the prisoner. She asked,
for a shilling, which I refused. She then put her hand into
my pocket, took out four half-crowns, and ran off with them.
I pursued her, but did not overtake her. I, two days after-
wards, saw her and held her until a policeman came up,
when I gave her into custody. She went on her knees and
begged to be liberated, when the prosecutor detained her.
The prisoner had previously been committed nine times.
Sentence was deferred until further enquiry could be made
respecting her.
Mary Ryan, a widow, was charged with having stolen ten
yards of carpetting, the property of Maria Woodnutt.
This case was recently heard at the police-office, and was
of but minor interest. The prisoner took the carpet out of
the parlour, and, whilst going off with it, was overtaken and
put into custody. The jury found the prisoner guilty. The
prisoner had previously been convicted of felony. The sen-
tence of the court was, that she should be transported for
seven years.
John Quinn, 17, and John Meredith, 52, stood charged
with having stolen twelve drinking glasses, the property of
Joseph Atherton. It appeared from the evidence that the
elder prisoner, who had been tempering with Quinn, an
apprentice, had gone early one morning to the back door of
the warehouse which Quinn had in charge, and had induced
him to give him the glasses. A police officer happened to be
paSsing at the time, and hearing the sound of the glasses in
a basket, with which Meredith was making off, he stopped
him, and the felony was consequently discovered. The pri-
soner, Quinn, received an excellent character for honesty up
to the present charge from the prosecutor, and also from his
former master. th prisoners were found guilty. Mere-
dith denied having previously been convicted at the Liverpool
Sessions of a former felony,—also stealing glass,—but the
fact.was proved. The Recorder, in passing sentence, said
that the offence of Meredith was of a most aggravated nature.
He had seduced a young and innocent youth from the path
of duty, and induced him to rob his master. He had before
also been convicted of felony. The sentence of the court
was, that he should be transported beyond the seas for the
term of ten years. The sentence of Quinn was deferred, and
he was put down.