The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-05 00:00:00

A BILL TRANSACTION.

WILSON (PUBLIC OFFICER, &C.) V. HEARN.
This was an action brought by Mr Edward Wilson, as one
of the public registered officers of the Bank of Liverpool, to
recover the amount of two bills of, exchange, accepted by
the defendant, Mr. Edward Hearn, of the Morning Herald
office, London. The action was undefended ; and the plain-
tiff's counsel, Mr. Rushton, called into the box Mr. Charles
West,, recently agent to the Morning Herald in this town,
and also one of the, publishers of. the Lancashire Herald, a
recently defunct paper, who stated that the acceptances to
these bills, one for £9O and the other for £lBO, were in the
handwriting of the defendant. The bills were put- in, and
were read by the officer of the court. It appeared that they
were both drawn and signed by the witness, Charles West.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages (including interest)
£278 ss.

His Lordship adjourned the court until nine o'clock the
following morning.

CROWN CQURT w EDNESDAY.
POISONING.

Mary Ann Ryan was indicted for having, at Liverpool,
feloniously administered, or caused to be administered, to
one Martin Power, a quantity of poison, with intent to mur-
der him.

Mr. ARMSTRONG opened the case for the prosecution.
Michael M`Quade, examined by Mr. RUSHTON.—I am
ten years of age. I live in Ford-street. I remember playing
in Vauxhall-road on Wednesday, the 15th of August last.
A person came to me about seven o'clock that evening. It
was that girl at the bar. I never saw her before that evening.
She had a small parcel with her, about the size of a two-
penny pie. She spoke to me, and said if I would go an er-
rand for her she would give me a penny. I consented to go,
and she then gave me the parcel, which she told me to give
to Mrs. Power, No. 3, George's-place, Ford-street. I took
it there. I saw Mrs. Power. 1 gave her the parcel, which
she opened while I was there. It was a pie. The night af-
ter a policeman came, and I went with him to a Mrs. Jack-
son's house. I saw the prisoner at Mrs. Jackson's. lam
quite sure that the prisoner at the bar is the who gave
me the pie.
William M`Gowan corroborated the testimony of the pre-
ceding witness.
Catharine Power, examined by Mr. Rushton.—l am the
wife of Darbey Power. I live in No. 3, George's-place. I
had not seen the prisoner for four years before this. I had
known her. I know Kitty Redmand ; she lived in the same
court with me. The prisoner is a relative of Kitty Red-
mand's ; she came to see her occasionally. I had a quarrel
with Kitty Redmand, before the 15th August. It was a
quarrel about the children. The prisoner came to see Kitty
Redmand a little before the 15th August. I was preparing
my husband's supper; she was in the yard, and struck me
over the face with her umbrella, and threw slush at me.
She said if she could get at me she would break my bones
for me. I awn went into the house, and a cob of coal was
thrown through the window, from the direction of her aunt
Redmand's house. I sent for the policeman, and when he
came the door was made fast and there was no light in the
house. This occurred the Friday night before the pie came,
which was the 10th August. I remember the boy M`Quale
coming to my house about half-past seven on the 15th August.
He brought a parcel, which he gave to me. I asked him
from whom it came. He said from a young woman in Vaux-
hall-road. There was a pie in the parcel, and I told the boy
it was not for me. The boy said the young woman told him
to leave it at the third house on the left-hand side of George's-
place. There was writing on the paper, but I could not read
it. The pie was the size of a common inkstand. I made
four parts of it with a knife, in about half an hour after. I
gave one part to my eldest child, Martha Power, five years
old ; another part I gave to a child of mine of two years old,
named Martin ; and my sister Margaret Murphy and I took
the remaining two parts. After I eat it I became sick in my
stomach. My children and sister all complained alike.
was very sick, and vomited ; so did my children and sister.
When I eat of the pie my husband was not at home. When
he came I was sick. I told him what had happened. He
read the paper that was round the pie. The paper now pro-
duced is the same. I got better when I threw up, and so
did the children.

Darby Power, husband of the last witness, corroborated
her testimony.

Thomas Fresh, inspector, of police, in consequence of in-
formation I received, I went to Power's house, on Thursday
the 16th of August, and saw the family, they complained of
being unwell. From information I got, I went with the boy
Quade to Mr. Jackson's. I brought the prisoner at the bar
into the room. I asked the boy if he knew her, he said she
was the girl who gave him the pie, but she was differently
dressed. She denied having sent the pie to Mr. Power by
the boy. She said that she knew Mrs. Power, but her aunt
and she had 'been at varience. I told her I must take her
into custody. She then said, " Good God ! I did not think
it would come to this."

Margaret Murphy described the effects- of the pie to be
similar to what has been stated by Mrs. Power.

Mary Ann Harrison.—! am an assistant with Mrs. Jack-
son. The prisoner was in the same employment. She went
out on the evening of the 15th of August, between six and
seven o'clock. She told me she was going to buy a frock,
and had to take a parcel to Vauxhail-road. She said she
would not deliver it herself, but would give a boy a penny to
take it. Mrs. Jackson sells meat pies, the prisoner was prin-
cipally employed in the bake-house. I don't know, how she
was dressed, as I did not see her going out on this evening.
The dress she ordinarly wore' when out, was a light dress
with sprigs on it. I pointed it out to the police-officer.
Catherine Connor stated, she never sent the pie to Mrs.
Power. She is acquainted with a sister of the prisoner, who
is now in town, but she was not at the time in question.
Mr. Craig, surgeon.—l visited the family of Darby Power
on the 16th August. The family was sick. I also saw Mr.
Murphy. They described the effects of the pie they eat as
they have done to-day. They were the invariable symptoms
of irritant poison in general, but of 'arsenic hi particular. I
applied tests to what was thrown up by the child Martin, and
could not detect satisfactorily the presence of arsenic. I
took a portion of it to Mr. Brett, the professor of chemistry.
Witness was then interrogated by his lordship as to the tests
he used.

Richard H. Brett.—l am professor of chemistry to the
Liverpool Apothecary's Company. On the 21st August Mr.
Craig brought me a fluid in a phial, and some solid matter
that he had been making experiments on. I operated on
both, and detected arsenic satisfactorily in one portion of the
fluid.

Mr. MURPHY then addressed the jury for the prisoner.
His LORDSHIP charged the jury, who, after a few minutes
consideration, returned a verdict—guilty, on the second count,
of having caused poison to be administered, with the intent
to murdr. The foreman stated they had doubts as to whe-
ther the quantity of poison contained in the pie was sufficient
to cause death.

In consequence of his Lordship entertaining some doubts
as to the legality of the manner in which the indictment in
the preceding prosecution was framed—which doubts, he
said, he would reserve for the opinion of the court above, the
prisoner, Mary Ann Ryan, was again arraigned on all indict-
ment for having caused poison to be administered to Catharine
Power, with intent to murder her.
Mr. MURPHY objected to submitting this case to the same
jury. Another jury was accordingly empanelled.
The same evidence was given as on the former trial.
His LORDSHIP charged the jury, and read over the evidence
to them, commenting upon it as he proceeded. He said, in
conclusion, that the jury had two questions to decide,
namely, did the prisoner knowingly put poison into the pie,
with intent to murder the prosecutrix, Catharine Power,?
If so, they should find her guilty, regardless of the conse-
quences that would ensue from such a verdict. If,, on the
contrary, they were of opinion that she administered it in
such a small quantity as only intending to injure the health
of the prosecutrix, then they should find her guilty of ad-
ministering the arsenic, with intent to do her some grievously
bodily harm.
The Jury then retired, and after being in consultation for
an hour and ten minutes, returned a verdict of guilty, with a
recommendation to the court for mercy, on account of her
youth, and because no lives were lost. His lordship said the
recommendation would be attended to, and in consequence he
deferred passing sentence.
The court then (a quarter past eight) adjourned till nine
o'clock the following morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT-WEDNESDAY.

TATTERSALL V. DIXON.

The plaintiff in this case-is an architect in Manchester, and
the action was brought to recover from the defendant, a ma-
nufacturer at Carlisle, remuneration for work done by him
in measuring, &c., in that city. The only question in dis-
pute was about the amount of remuneration. The defendant
was employed to superintend a new mill which the plaintiff
erected in 1834, for which lie was to receive one hundred
pounds, and two guineas per day. There was some extra
work which the defendant was desirous of completing, and
for which there was no contract. The claim for the first
work was liquidated within a few pounds, and after some con-
versation, a verdict was taken for £3OO, subject to a refer-
ence.

HERRING THE YOUNGER V. WOOD.
Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case to the jury. The plain-
tiff is a shipowner in Sunderland, and the defendant a mer-
chant in Hull. The action was brought to recover damages
for the detention of a vessel, called the Courier, beyond the
time allowed by the charter party. The principal points for
the consideration of the jury were, whether the vessel, which
was to proceed to Dantzic, and had only gone as far as Fair-
water, about seven miles from the former place, was detained
beyond a certain time, and whether the loading had been
completed according to the terms of the charter party. It
appeared in evidence that the vessel had arrived at Fairwater
in the month of March, 1837, and did not proceed to Dantzic
in consequence of its being unsafe at that period of the year
to pass some shoals, and, as is the practice, part of the cargo
was taken out, and the vessel being re-loaded, proceeded for
Liverpool, where she arrived in May. Here she was de-
tained sixteen days over the period of thirty days allowed for
demurrage, whilst twenty days had been exceeded at Dantzic.
The plaintiff claimed £5 per day for detention.
Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the defendant,
and his LORDSHIP having summed up the evidence, the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £25.