The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-23 00:00:00

DEATH OF MR. EDMUND BICKERSTETH.

On Saturday last, June 1, about one o'clock in the after •
noon, ,Mr. Bickersteth, accompanied by a young friend,
startedfrom Cape Town, on an excursion to Thred Anchor
Bay, for the purpose of fishing and shooting. They had al-
most.reached their destination when, in crossing some wet
marshy ground, poor Mr. B's foot slipped, and he fell for-
wards ; in the attempt to recover himself, a double-barrelled
gun which he was carrying on his shoulder tilted over, and
came, in contact with the ground. It being a percussion lock,
the sudden blow must have caused the discharge of the left
barrel, and the poor young man received the whole of its
contents in his right side. The discharge shattered the ribs,
and pa3sing through the liver and part of the right lung,
found its exit between the spine and shoulder blade of the
same .Qde.
Having turned round two or three times on the spot, he
pressbd his hand firmly on the bleeding wound, and con-
vulsively closing his lips, without having uttered a word or
even groan, he sank lifeless to the earth. In a few minutes
his afflicted and bereaved brother was at his side; too late,
alas ! for aught else than the melancholy satisfaction of con-
veying'to some kindlier resting place his sad remains.
The' unfortunate deceased was for some time an under-
graduate of the University of Cambridge ; but from delicacy
of health was induced to forsake for a period his academical
pursuits, and leave his own for a more genial clime. Since
his arrival here, now little more than twelve months, his
health had much improved ; and he had devoted himself
closely to the study of the medical profession. Being natu-
rally of a quiet, retiring disposition, he had sought for no
acquaintance. and remained, except to a very few, almost en-
tirely unknown. To those, however, who enjoyed his friend-
ship, his loss will be keenly felt. To talents of no ordinary
cast he possessed, in addition, an almost dauntless perse-
verance, which carried him through many difficulties that
to minds less strongly constituted might have proved insur-
mountable.
As a friend he was warm and sincere, and if he possessed
a feeling in this respect, it was that of a susceptibility too
keenly alive, perhaps, to the slightest fancied or real change.
In the closer re!ationi of life his conduct was no less admira-
ble and praiseworthy. As a son and a brother, the fervency
of his'affection has certainly been seldom equalled, if ever
excelled; and the full extent of his worth in these characters
has been, alas ! only sufficiently appreciated by the chasm
which his awful and untimely death has caused in the imme-
diate circle that mourn his Loss. —South African Paper,
June sth, 1839.
[The deceased was the younger brother of the Rev. Edward
Bickersteth, of the Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury.]

PERTH CITY ELECTION.
RETURN OF THE LORD PROVOST.
A correspondent has transmitted to us an account of the
election for the city of Perth, which took place on Saturday
last. '
On the resignation of the Hon. Arthur ICinnaird, Mr. Oli-
phant made a hasty canvas of the citizens, and up to the
evening of Friday last, it was believed that he would be re-
turned without opposition. Early on Saturday morning,
however, placards were extensively posted over the city, an-
nouncing that the Lord Provost, David Greig, Esq., would
be put in nomination. Accordingly, at twelve o'clock, Mr.
Oliphant was proposed by the head resident magistrate, se-
conded by the Dean of Guild. The Lord Provost was pro-
posed by Bailie Robertson, seconded by Bailie Johnston.
After a show of hands, a poll was demanded. During the
afternoon, however, Mr. Oliphant published an address, an-
nouncing that he had retired from the contest, and Mr. Greig
is, therefore the member for the city of Perth. What ren-
ders this circumstance the more remarkable is, that the Lord
Provost is at present in England, and is entirely ignorant of
the senatorial dignity which has been conferred on him.
The new member is a moderate Churchman, and rather
a Conservative Whig.
Since the above was written, we have conversed with an
Edinburgh gentleman who was in Perth during the election,
and who corroborates the preceding statement in its main
particulars. The principal cause of the coolness of the Perth
-electors towards Mr. Oliphant arose from the fact, pre-
sumed or real, that that gentleman's return had been all
arranged by the Treasury before the constituency were con-
sulted on a subiect. which so nearly concerned them, and
that, in fact, Mr. Oliphlajat was merely meant as the locum
tenens of Mr. Fox Maule, in the event of that gentleman
losing the representation of the Elgin burghs. An under
current of discontent had, therefore, been making. way,
which eventually displ4ed itself against Mr. Oliphant in
very decided terms. At seven o'clock on Saturday even-
ing, Mr. Oliphant issued a placard expressive of his surprise
that his friend the Lord Provost had been put in nomination ;
bit that as his lordship supported the same line of politics
with himself, and as it would serve a bad purpose to divide
the liberal constituency. he retired from the contest " Had
the Lord Provost (Mr. 0. states) not been accidentally ab-
sent; the present emergency would not have occurred."
Mr. Greig, the new M.P., left Perth for Liverpool on
Wednesday last, and was made partially aware of what was
to occur before his departure. He is a silversmith in Perth,
and -though not a landed proprietor, is wealthy and highly
respected.—Glaallow Herald.

%%\'

-lIN Ilk

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES

CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY.
CHARGE OF MURDER.
It being generally known that the trial of the prisoner,
charged with the murder of the police-officer, Bailey,
would, this day, come on, the court was crowded at an
unusually early hour, and the attendance of ladies was
greater than we remember it for many assizes. His lordship
entered the court at three minutes past nine, and after the
usual forms were gone through,
Daniel Cole, aged 30, was placed at the bar, and being
arraigned, held up his hand, and pleaded Not Guilty.
The following jury was then sworn in :
Thomas Bird, gentleman, Manchester
Josias Booker, merchant, Allerton
John Clover, merchant, Toxteth-park
Charles Hamnett, calenderer, Cheetham
George Hayward, gentleman, Chorlton-upon-Medlock
Thomas Hilton, cotton merchant, Atdwick
Joseph Knott, oil merchant, Cheetham
Thomas Ridyard, grocer, Great Bolton
Ralph Robinson, merchant, Liverpool
John Sparrow, gentleman, Cheetham -
John Stollard, joiner and builder, Hulme
Samuel Taylor, cotton spinner, Little Bolton.
Mr. Armstrong, with whom was Mr. Ellis, conducted the
prosecution. Mr. Murphy appeared in behalf of the pri-
soner.
The prisoner, a stout, broad-set, good-looking man, with
dark bushy whiskers, was dressed in a suit of mole-skin or
white fustian, a round jacket, vest, and trousers. He had
on a white shirt, the collar of. which stood high, and he wore
a black silk handkerchief, thrown round the neck and loosely
tied in front, after the manner customary with seamen. He
moved from side to side, and occasionally turned backward
and gazed upon the persons forming the auditory, of the
court. He did not appear to be agitated personally ; but
there was an unsteadiness and wildness of the eye, which
appeared to be slightly inflamed, that indicated the fearful
workings of the mind within. At times, however, he ap-
peared to be totally unconscious of his awful situation.
Mr. ARMSTRONG stated the case. He had before him a
large plan of the streets surrounding the spot where the crime
was committed, which he alluded to, in order to facilitate the
understanding of the jury.' After detailing the facts of the
case, the learned counsel dwelt on the law that was applicable
to the case. ,He said that to resist a police-officer, and cause
his. death; while in the execution of his duty, was murder ;
but it did not need even that to implicate the prisoner, as he
had been guilty of murder, whether the deceased was an
officer or not.
William Fox.-1 am an assistant surveyor to the corpora-
tion. I here .pr.oduce a plan which I made. (Witness
described the plan.) From Green's-court, to nearest lamp
in College-lane, is about nine yards. From Green's-court
to the lamp, corner of Hanover-street and College;lane, 52
yards. From the last lamp at the corner of College-lane, to
the one at the Excise-office, 46 yards ; hence to lamp oppo-
site to end of Grallwell-street, 43 yards. Length of front
of Excise-office, 24 yards.
Alice Murphy, sworn.—l lived in Green's-court, in April
last. I knew Mrs. Moran,—my landlady. The .prisoner
lived in the house on left-hand side. It was on the night of
15th April, between nine and ten. The prisoner's wife Was
there. Mrs. Moran was al4o there. The prisoner came in
between nine and ten o'clock. There was no candle lighted,
but the fire was in. I lighted the candle. The prisoner's
wife quenched it with her hand. I relit the candle, and said,
" What's your humour for quenching the candle ? Is that
the way again, lassie ?" She had no cap on, and was not
sober. Before her saying, " What's your humour," she
asked me to quench it. She said, " I am not drunk Dan,"
and she fell over in a corner. I could not tell whether he
shoved her or not, as I did not see. I took my chair away
to let her get up, and was going to take the second away
when she took hold of it. Prisoner took hold of the chair,
and I turned away. Next time I saw her she was on the
opposite side of the kite-hen. She had no cap on, and the
prisoner pas standing by her. I saw him put his hand to
her neck," but saw nothing in it. I then saw the blood
flowing from her throat. When he stepped back, I did not
see that he had anything in his hand. There was a little
girl up stairs, and I called her, and sent her out for the land-
lady's daughter. She saw the prisoner's wife. She went out
for Mrs: Moran's daughter. The prisoner's wife walked
about a short time, and then went out of the house. She
was bleeding. As soon as Mrs. Moran's daughter came, I
went out—to the bottom of the court. I left the prisoner
and the landlady in the house, when I came out. The land-
lady's daughter came out. One officer then came up the
court, with others with him. I remained at the bottom of
the entry. They came down again in a short time, and
knocked their sticks on the flags, and went on towards Para-
dise-street. I staid where I was. While I stood at the end
of the court, the. prisoner walked out. He went towards
Seel-street. He came down in a very short time after the
sticks were knocked.
Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—It was the second
time that she asked me to put out the candle, that prisoner
said, " what is your humour for that," &c.
Mary Moran, sworn—l kept the house where the prisoner
lodged on the 15th... I- saw the prisoner's wife that night,
and she was intoxicated. I said, " you have got drunk since
I went out." The prisoner came in in about half-an-hour
after me. I heard him say, " Is, that the way, lassie? is
that the way." When I raised my head I saw his wife
bleeding from the neck. I took him by the collar, and said,
" you villain, did you cut her neck." I saw nothing in his
hand. Some man came to the door. kept hold of him -for
two or three minutes. No one came in but my daughter till
he went out. I was so much " through other," that I can
tell no more. The man at the door was in the clothing of a
policeman. .
Cross-examined—The prisoner and his wife had lodged
three weeks with me. She was a drunken woman. He was
a quiet industrious man, and as quiet a man as ever came
within a house. She would get drink if she could get it.
She was, and is, a drunken woman.
Francis Moran, sworn—He voluntarily said, " I have no-
thing to say of the prisoner. I did not see the prisoner do
anything at all." Examined—The prisoner lodged with us.
A Mrs. Carrol, a dark woman, lodged with us. Her daugh-
ter, Margaret (10 years old), came to fetch me from Mole-
son's, at the bottom of the entry. I went home. When I
got home I saw Mrs. Cole standing at the back of the door.'
She wanted me to go to' the doctor, but. I would not. I
thought she deserved it. I saw some blood, and her hand to
her neck. I remained in the house, and if the prisoner's in-
tentions were had he might have done , the same to me.
Moleson's daughter went up the entry. An officer came to
the door, while I was in the house. The prisoner was there,
and appeared to me, from his looks, like a man out of his
mind. A good many people came when the row began.
There , was a confusion in the yard when they said that her
throat was cut: A person named Rigg held the door out-
side, and the prisoner inside. Prisoner got the door off the
hinges. We were all insisting on his going out. It is my
opinion that he would have stopped all night if he had been
-allowed. I and others wanted him to go out, as there was
such a row. When he got out, the man, and I think the
prisoner, had a scuffle in the entry. It was rather dark, and
I saw nothing more. I afterwards went down the entry, and
saw a policeman carried to Atherton, but could'not say whe-
ther he was dead or alive.
Cross-examined.—The prisoner was a very dissipated cha-
racter. He had several times before found him drunk when
he came home. I thought him not in his mind from his
look. I have heard that he had a wound in his head.
• Robert Rigg said, I am a master mariner of Dumfries. In
going along College-lane, on the night of the 15th, I saw a
police-officer, and spoke to him. 1 was going to part with
him ; but when we came to the corner of Peter's-lane, I
heard a woman cry out " Murder ! Police ! a man has cut
his -wife's throat." The policeman put his hand upon my
shoulder, and asked me to go with him. We went a little
up, and' into a court, on the right had side of College-lane to
a house. I' saw the prisoner there, and two or three females.
One of the women had a white apron all covered with blood.
The prisoner attempted to get out. I prevented him by
getting the door shut. The policeman asked me to hold the
door until he could get more assistance. I held it about five
minutes. Same persons pulled inside ; something about the
door gave way, and the prisoner came out. I was knocked
down by a blow from the prisoner, on the head. My face
was cut by the blow. I got up, and went to him again, and
he again knocked me down. When I got up he was gone.
I went down the court to pursue him. There were persons
at the bottom. I turned to the right hand, and went to the
spot when I heard the policeman say he is gone this way.
When I turned the corner of College-lane, I saw him in
Hanover-street. He had just got to the opposite side of
Hanover-street, when I heard the policeman, I saw it was
the same policeman that had left me at the door. He was
about the middle of the street, running towards.the prisoner.
I saw the policeman with his left hand up as if going to seize
the prisoner. The woman cried out, Oh, dear! he has
got a knife, take care—he will kill some one." A scuffle took
place between the two. When I got up, prisoner had
his right hand up, towards the left side of the police-officers
head. I then fastened hold of the prisoner by the
right arm, and both of us fell. Some others I think fell;
but if not at the same time, they were very quickly on the
top of us. The officer did not fall along with us. When the
prisoner was on the ground I and two young men kept him
on the ground. One of the young men said, " Hold him
fast ;" and one or other of them said, " he has got a knife
in hs hand," or " he has got the knife." We were not
then aware that the policeman had been stabbed. A number
of officers-came and secured the prisoner. I got a cut on the
nose, extending along the right cheek, one on my eyebrow,
and one on my wrist. The first cut was got by being knocked
down in the court by the prisoner, the other when down in
the street. One of the officers took me to a house and I
washed myself. When we came out we beard that the police-
man was stabbed. I went to the house where he lay. He
was dead. The wound was on the left side of his neck. From
the time the officer went up to the prisoner and the time I
got up not half a minute elapsed.
Cross-examined.—There was no crowd near the police
when they went up to' the prisoner. There were people be-
hind me shouting. The old than and woman I had seen at
the bottom of the entry were shouting, but no other persons,
either there or in Hanover-street. The police-officer was
pursuing him. He was' the same man that went into the
court with me. He could not say at the time he first saw._
the policeman's body that he was the same, he was so dis-
figured with blood. The question was not put to him before.
The prisoner's right arm was up towards his own when the
policeman went up to him; and the prisoner made a stand.
The police-officer never got hold of him.
Ann Moulson deposed—My, father is a' shoemaker, and
we live at the bottom of Green's-court. I heard an alarm,
and an expression about a throat being cut. It was between
nine and ten on the night of the 15th April. I went out at
the back door, which opens into the entry, and saw prisoner's
wife run out of her lodging and pass me. She said something,
but I did not hear what. I then went up the court and saw
the prisoner standing on the floor. Mrs. Moran was calling
him a murdering villain, and shaking her fist at him. There
was blood on the floor. I then ran down the court and gave
the alarm. A police-officer, Mr. Rigg, and my father came
into the court. The officer gave the prisoner in charge of
Mr. Rigg and my father, and went into College-lane for fur-
ther assistance. Mr. Rigg was a little inside the door. My
father was on the step. The door was not quite open. The
prisoner made an attempt to come out, but was prevented by
Mr. Rigg, who got the door closed. He got out and went
up College-lane. I followed him. After he came out of the
court, and when he was about two yards from me, I saw a
knife in his right hand. I kept my eye upon him, and saw
it till he reached the Excise-office. I called out as the officer
passed— Oh dear ! he has got a knife." The next thing
I saw, was, the police-officer, who staggered back, and
struck his stick on the ground. I saw him in the act of fall-
ing. I saw two or three more females run to support him.
He tried to walk as well as he could towards College-lane.
We had afterwards to carry him ; 1 assisted to carry him to
Atherton's. He died in two or three minutes after we got
him to the house.
Cross-examined.—l saw- the police-officer stagger.. That
was all at that time.
Manlove Moulson.—l am a shoemaker. The back of my
house opens into Green's-court. I was called out between
nine and tenon the night of the 15th of April, and saw a
woman bleeding. She had her two hands to her throat. I
went to call an officer, and told him there was a woman
bleeding in Green's-court. The officer I spoke to was at
the corner of Peter's-lane with Mr. Rigg. The policeman
and I and Rigg went up the court. We went to Moran's
house. I saw the prisoner there. There was blood on the
floor. I and Mr. Rigg were left in charge of the prisoner to
prevent him from escaping. Mr. Rigg reproved the pri-
soner, who then attempted to get out ; but Mr. Rigg got the
door to, and he and I held it by the handle, until, I thought as
the prisoner was pulling hard on the inside that he would
make his escape. 1 was alarmed at this and went to call the
police into College-lane. Whilst I was there the prisoner
passed me, and went up towards Hanover-street. I fol.
lowed him a few yards. I saw the blade of a knife in his
right hand. I did not attempt to atop him. When be had

crossed Hanover-street, the policeman came up College-
lane, rather on the run. The policeman went up to him. I

cannot say if it was the same policeman that left me at the
door. I saw only one policeman go up to him. I saw no
blow given, but saw the policeman afterwards on the ground
with &crowd abont him.
Ann Atherton—l am the wife of James Atherton. My
husband keeps a public-house in College-lane. About ten
minutes past ten .1 saw the policeman go' up College-lane to
Han-over-street. I followed him to the Excise-office. I next
saw him stepping out of the middle of the street on to the
side, and he put his hand up to his neck, and struck the
ground with his stick. I heard the blood gushing on the
flags. I went and took hold of him. He walked about four
or five yards, and then his legs failed him. The blood flowed
from his neck. I saw it immediately I went.
Jane Grayson.—l live in Seel-street. Coming out of the
court, into Seel-street,.a minute or two after ten o'clock, on
the 15th April, I heard some women telling the policeman
that a man had cut his wife's throat. I went down to
Green's-court. I saw the prisoner there. I then went down
the court. I saw the prisoner come out of the court, and I
followed him. He went round the corner, into Hanover-
street. I followed him. He passed over into the middle of
the street. I saw a policeman who came up College-lane,
running after the prisoner. He overtook him by the Excise-
office. I cannot say whether he got hold of him, but they were
very close. I can't say whether the prisoner struck the officer ;
but the officer's' hat fell off. The officer was, in a manner,
endeavouring to strike the prisoner with his stick, when his
hat fell off. He hit the. prisoner on the shoulder. The po-
liceman staggered back directly, and I followed up to him,
and.got hold of his left arm. I did not see the policeman
strike the prisoner after his (the policeman's) hat fell off.
When I took hold of the policeman's arm, I observed blood
gushing from his throat. I asked him if he was stabbed,
and he made no answer.

Cross-examined.—The policeman had his stick up to strike
prisoner when his hat fell off.
Thomas Fletcher.—l am a watchmaker, and live in Rich-
mond-row. On the night in question I heard the cry'of
" Murder,!" I heard a ory that a man had murdered his
wife in Hanover-street. I went to a house in Green's-court,
and saw a young woman with her clothes covered with blood.
When I reached the house, there was a, person. dressed as a
sea-faring man. This man took the apron off, and said,
" This will be another witness for me." The prisoner made
use of some foul expression to the' young woman who had
the blood on her clothes ; but I cannot say what it was.
There was a policeman there, with the sea-faring man ; 'the
policeman went for further assistance. The prisoner took
his hat and wished, to come out ; but the sea-faring man
stopped him. I went down the, court, and stopped at the end
of the court.• The Prisonet came' out, and I followed him ;
he went down Hanover-street, towards the Excise-office.
After he had passed the Exqise-office, on the same side, the
policeman came up, and offered to collai.him. I can't say
whether it was the same officer. First time he did not get
hold of him. The second time .he collared him. The pri-
soner then struck him with his hand, just above his 'collar,
on the left side. After the police-officer was struck, he was
going to make a blow at the prisoner, but dropped his blow,
put his hand to his neck, and said, " Oh, he has stabbed me,"
and the blood flowed from him. A scuffle took place be-
tween the prisoner and the people about, and he was thrown
down, and I held his legs till Le was secured. 'I noticed
something in the prisoner's hand, but cannot say what it was.
James Gilbertson.-1 am a book-keeper. On Monday
night, April 15, I was passing along Hanover-street, when I
heard an alarm, and heard that .a man had cut his wife's
throat. I had previously seen a woman, whom I thought to
be her. One of the officers followed in he direction she had
taken. The other officers went down Peter's-lane, to look
after the man. I continued to go along Hanover-street, and
at the corner of College-lane I met the prisoner, with many
persons following a few yards behind .him on the parapet.
The prisoner 'crossed over the street, and the officer imme-
diately came up. From the appearance of the officer I think
he was the same man I had seen in Peter's-lane. He crossed
over towards the prisoner, arid took hold of him. The pri-
soner turned round and struck at him. His hat fell off. The
officer raised his stick as if to strike ; but, so far as 1 could
see, did not strike. The officer and prisoner then closed. I
should think another blow was given, but cannot swear it.

,
The officer and prisoner both were down. The officer went
to the parapet and knocked his stick. The blood was flowing
from his neck. :At this time the prisoner was secured. I
went up to the prisoner and stood over him. I saw a knife
taken from him.
Cross-examined.--I saw several persons running after him.
They only called Gut that he had a knife in his hand.
William Selsby.—l am with a broker in Castle-street. I

was in Han&veir-street on the night in question. I saw the
prisoner and the policeman coming after. Several people
followed. The prisoner was in Hanover-street. Some of
the persons called out that he had a knife. The policeman
ran up and tried to catch hold of him but missed, and
passed on a few yards. Whilst doing so the prisoner made.
two or three blows at him with his right hand. A man in
sailor's clothes came and rushed at prisoner, and both fell
together. As soon as they fell I got hold of prisoner by
the right hand. He dropped a knife from that hand. I
picked it up. It was open. I gave it up at the Bridewell.
John Thursby,—l am keeper of Hotharn-street Bridewell.
The,prisoner was brought there on a charge of cutting his
wife's throat anti afterwards stabbing a police-officer. I also
received a police-officer's hat, a handkerchief, and a pair of
gloves, from a person named M'Clusty.
Cross-exthnined.—The prisoner was very quiet when he
came.

Joseph Chantler, a corkcutter.—l was in Hanover-street
and (as before) I saw the prisoner coming from College-lane
to Hanover-street. A policeman was running after him.
Heard persons cry, "mind him, mind him, he has got a
knife." They were going across towards the old Excise
office. The policeman ran ten yards past him. The police-
man then turned round, and the prisoner struck him with
his fist, as I suppose. They then had a bit of a struggle to-
gether. The prisoner then aimed another blow at him, as if
he was hitting at his face. I cannot say whether he struck
him. The policeman then staggered ; knocked his stick se-
veral times on the ground. He then put his hands to left
side of face, and I saw blood running from him. I turned
and saw a man like a sailor run at, the prisoner : they both
fell together. When down, Selby, thelast witness, lay down
on his right arm and pressed it. Prisoner opened his hand
and the knife rolled out. Selby took up the knife, closed it,
and put it in his pocket.
James M'Cluskie.—l am a glasscutter. I saw the pri-
soner in Hanover-street at the time in question. -He was
coming round the corner of College-lane into Hanover-street.
The policeman was following'at a sharp walk. He Went up to
the prisoner, made a click at his collar, and got a yard and a'
half or two yards rum", Tiro v-dinnman turned rniinrl nnd
faced. The prisoner struck two or three hits at the police
officer with his hand. The policeman put his band to his
neck and staggered, and knocked his stick upon the flags.
Some one shouted, "lay hold of the prisoner's legs," and I
assisted to hold him down. I Put my knee upon his leg.
When the policeman came up a woman picked up a hat and
gave it to me. I gave it up at the police-office.
Cross-examined.—l thought the last blow given by the
prisoner was a backhanded one.
-Charles Dougherty.—l am a tailor. I was on the night in
question in Hanover-street. It was three or four minutes
past ten at night. I saw a crowd in College-lane. I saw the
prisoner come down the court, and some person said, " He
has a knife in his hand. He turned into Hanover-street.
I followed him along that street. I saw a police-officer pass
me towards the prisoner. The officer reached out his hand
to catch the prisoner. A scuffle ensued. I saw the prisoner's
left hand rise and strike the officer on the side of the
head. He raised. it a , second time. A man in sailor's
clothes seized the prisoner's arm, and prevented the
blow. They all staggered towards the parapet. The priso-
ner and the sailor fell, .and the policeman staggered.. The
officer put his hand to his neck, on the left side. The blood
flowed on the flags from his neck. The officer knocked his
' stick very hard. I walked with him a little, and then re-
turned *to where the prisoner was. I saw his right hand
open, and a knife drop out of it. Towards the handle there
was blood, also towards the point.
Cross-examined—They were all three together at the time
the officer fell down.
Samuel Frazer—l am. a cooper, and live in Seel-street.
On the night I heard a female call " police ! police ! mur-
der ! murder !" It was at ten minutes past ten. I and my
wife were out. I heard it said that a man had cut his wife's
throat. I went into College-lane, and went to a court on the
left hand side. I saw some blood qn the ground. I saw the
prisoner come out of the court. Ile had something in his
right hand, I cannot say what. He turned towards Hano-
ver-street. I and other persons followed him. He turned
down Hanover-street. A police-officer was following him,
and when he passed me, he cried, " Where is he ? where is
he ?!' 1 told him. The policeman went up, and they had
a scuffle together. I saw the prisoner raise his right hand,
and make a blow at the policeman's neck. The police-
man raised his .right hand to make a blow at the prisoner,
but I cannot say whether he struck him or not. The police-
man then staggered back, and knocked his stick to the
ground, a signal for assistance: Two women went, and
and took hold of him, as his legs were giving way.
Margaret Frazer, wife of the last witness, corroborated her
husband and the other witness,
John Walker, said he was an inspector of police. The
deceased had the thirteenth beat of the section. His name
was David Bailey. His number was 3.38. (The witness here
detailed the officers appointed to the several beats in the
section.) This hat is marked with the deceased's number.
I saw the deceased dead.
Richard Fergusson, who.was an officer in the police, but
has left the force, Police-officers Gregory, M`Rae, Richard
Jones, and John Parkes, who were on duty at the surround-
ing beats, gave evidence of the several parts taken by them,
after hearing that a woman had got her throat cut.
Mr. Callan, surgeon, Duke-street, deposed, that he was
sent for, a little after ten o'clock, to Atherton's public-house.
He found Bailey there, dead. He had a large wound on the
side of his neck, through which he could introduce his fin-
gers into the mouth. He afterwards examined the body, in
company with Dr. Macintyre. The external and internal
carotid arteries were both divided, as was also the jugular
vein. The knife had been stopped by the jaw on the oppo-
site side. The blow must have been a powerful blow.
Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—If a person had re-
ceived a concussion of the brain, excitement would be likely
to render them deranged. • If a party got into a-violent pas-
sion, it might produce derangement in such a case, but it
seldom does.
Dr. Macintyre stated, that he was called in to see the de-
cehsed. He found him at Atherton's. Assisted in examin-
ing post mortem, as stated. Concurred with Mr. Callan as
to the appearances. Death must have ensued within five
minutes after such an injury.
Witness was cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY, touching
the effects which a concussion or fracture might produce.
He gave testimony similar to that of the last witness.
Mr. Moore, assistant to Mr. Taylor, of Cleveland-square,
described the position of the wound on Mrs. Cole's neck,
which wound he dressed. It was on the neck, and a deep,
but not a dangerous, wound.
•Mr. MURPHY, for the defence, pointed out to the jury
that he had abstained almost entirely from cross-examining
on the facts. The jury would see, by the few questions he
had already. put to the witnesses, what he intended to bring
into proof. The learned counsel proceeded to state, that the
prisoner had received great injuries on his head, formerly, in
Ireland. Once, when he was blasting rocks, a heavy piece
fell upon him, and hurt him severely. Ever since this the
prisoner had been, upon very inadequate causes, subject to
sudden fits of fury, and occasionally of madness. This he
should prove by the witnesses 'whom he should call, who
were mostly •his relations. The learned counsel said, he
should also show,• more definitely than had been done, the
•
habits of the prisoner's wife. On this subject the learned
counsel made an eloquent appeal to the jury. He thought
when he had proved the great provocations which the pri-
soner had received, with his mind predisposed to insanity,
he would have convinced the jury, that he had his mind
wrought up to such a state at the time when the.act was
committed, as would reduce murder to manslaughter.
Michael Cole, brother of the prisoner, stated that his bro-
ther (the prisoner) and he once worked in a quarry together,
shortly before they left Ireland for Liverpool, which was,
about twelve years ago. Witness described that twice his
brother had had his head injured by blasting. His head al-
ways had to be tied tight for about two years, and ever since
when he took any drink. From that time to this his head
was never the same, and he always seemed wild when he got
any drink. Witness further proved that the wife of the pri-
soner was a very drunken woman, who used to drink her
husband's wages sometimes,—at other times sell the provi-
sions out of the house. Sometimes when she was very hard
upon him, his temper and his head used to be very bad. He
used to have his head tied, and it was as much as he (witness)
could do to hold him. After these things were over, he used
to ask witness when he told him what had happened, why he
did not tie him or knock him down ? When told what he
had done, he would not believe him. He had assaulted wit-
ness and smashed his own furniture, The witness said—

" He smashed a good clock, with an axe, at the same time he
made a lick at me,,and hit his wife, and I was very glad of it,
—I wish he had killed her that day."
_ _

The witness was rebuked by the court and the counsel for
the prisoner. On cross-examination he modified his state-
ment, saying that the prisoner did not strike his wife with
the axe but with his foot. _ _ _ _

The warehouseman of a Mr. Gaebel said, the prisoner had
been a porterto the latter for some time. This witness said
there was nothing the matter with his understanding so long
as he was sober. .

John M`Donald, warehouseman to Mr. Henry Hill, stated,
that the prisoner had worked occasionally• for Mr. Hill, and
borne a good character. The prisoner was sensible when not
drunk,—but when intoxicated, drink had a great effect upon
him. Had seen him when at home take a clock off the wall
and break it and burn it.

Mr. ARMSTRONG replied, pointing out the dangerous na-
ture of the defence set up, whic,h should on all occasions,,be
supported'bi.the very best evidence, and be, proved beyond a
doubt, ere its effects should be allowed to operate. He agreed
with the learned counsel for' the defence, that the circum-
stance of having a drunken wife was one of the greatest
miseries that could possibly befal a person in his rank of life.
It did not appear throughout the evidence that the prisoner
was irrational till he was irritated ; it was said, on the con-
trary, that he was (Piet unless irritated by his wife. There
was no evidence to show that he was not a responsible being'
when he committed the act. If the jury could, by the ut-
most possible stretch of any construction that might be put
on the circumstances, make it appear to them that he had re-
ceived such provocation as would moderate the crime to man-
slaughter, it would be their duty so to find their verdict.
The learned JTIDGE then explained the law relating to the
several circumstances of the case, and summed up the evi-
dence at full length, commenting on it as he proceeded, and
carefully keeping in view every point of law and of fact, that
could by possibility of construction reduce the offence to
manslaughter. He explained the law as related to the pecu-
liar protection given to police officers : and directed their at-
tention particularly to the " scuffle" spoken of, that had
taken place between the prisoner and the deceased', of which
there were several accounts varying a little. If they were of
opinion that the prisoner (who, however, at the time was
aware that the police were in search of him) did not know
that his pursuer was a police-officer, and that such scuffle
took place between them, in which the other struck him, as
would induce him in self' defence to resort to a knife which
he might have in his possession, or in his hand at the time—
then would it be a consideration whether the offence might
not be manslaughter only. He then proceeded to read and
comment upon the rest of the evidence, and concluded a
lucid charge, by stating, if they were of opinion that the
prisoner was insane when he stabbed ' • in that case the pri-
soner would be imprisoned during her Majesty's pleasure,
under the advice of her council. If they were not of that
opinion, they had next to consider whether the prisoner knew
the deceased to be a police—officer. If they were of that
opinion, it was his duty to intbrm them that in law the of-
fence amounted to murder. They would not have to consi-
der whether the prisoner did not mistake the officer for
another person, and that in a scuffle, he in the heat of passion
made use of the knife, and so took away his life. But he
must inform them that an assault committed upon another

person, who gave some cause of provocation, was not always
mere manslaughter. For instance, a man laying hold of a
man's collar, did not justify the use of so deadly a weapon as
a knife. But if blows were struck, causing aggravation, and
the party not knowing the person to be a police-officer,
should inflict the stab in a transport of passion, under the
smart of the blows received, the offence would be reduced to
manslaughter. After a few further observations, his lord-
ship directed the jury to retire, after an address of one hour
and ten minutes duration.

The jury retired, and were absent about 35 minutes, when
they returned with a verdict of acquittal from the charge of
murder., but guilty of a very aggravated case of man-
slaughter.
The learned JUDGE, in passing sentence said—Daniel
Cole, you have been found guilty of an aggravated man-
slaughter—so nearly amounting to murder, that it was
scarcely distinguishable from it. You have been fortunate
in escaping from capital punishment ; for if the jury had
found you guilty of murder, I should certainly have found it
my painful duty to have left you for execution. Through
your cruelty the town has lost a useful officer, and by that
base mode which had latterly become unfortunately too pre-
ialent. As it is, the sentence of the court is, that you be
transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life,
to such place as her Majesty, acting under the advice of her
privy council, shall think fit.
The prisoner was then removed.
The trial was the only one that took place during the day,
and occupied the court from nine in the morning till six in
the evening. The court then adjourned.

NISI PRIUS COURT—TUESDAY.
SWALLOW V. NIELD.
John Swallow was the plaintiff, and Arthur Nield the de-
fendant ; and the action (an undefended one) was brought to
recover the amount of two bills of exchange for £l3O and
£l5O, accepted by the defendant, together with a balance due
for goods delivered, making altogether £368 3s. Bd. Verdict
for the plaintiff for that sum.
GIBB V. BUCK.
This action was an undefended one. It was brought by
Mr. William Gibb, a wine and spirit merchant, to recover
from the defendant the sum of £52 Ils. Bdfl, for goods sold
and delivered. Verdict for the plaintiff for the sum &aimed.
HARTLEY V. WELLS.
Mr. Jas. Hartley was the plaintiff, and Mr. Joseph Wells
the defendant ; and the action was brought to recover the
value of a bill of exchange for £26 125., drawn by Mr. Rich.
Hargreaves on the defendant, and payable in two months
after date. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the
bill, with interest—£26 17s. 6d.
KILSHAW V. DAVIES.
In this case Mr. John Kilshaw, builder, was the plaintiff,
and Mr. John Davies, attorney, the defendant, (both of this
town,) and the action was brought to recover the sum of
£3,299 4s. 4d. for work done by the plaintiff in the erection
of a house at Liscard, which was first to have been taken by
Mrs. Smith, for a school. The work was done in the years
1834 and 1835, and the agreement was, that the work should
be valued from time to time by Mr. Wrightman, at the usual
scale of Liverpool prices, and, after a deduction of 25 per
cent. had been made, interest was to be payable on the re-
maining sum at the rate of 5 per cent. The sum of £l7 only
had been paid ; but, according to agreement, a mortgage on
the house had been granted to the plaintiff. The defendant's
pleas were four or five in number, one of them being, that the
work done amounted to only £2,210, and that the difference
between `that sum and £2,950 was made up of interest, and
wnq therefore unlawful. He 43. r.,l..ded a set-off of -el .359
- After Mt: Martin, for the plaintiff, had stated the case, a
conversation took place between Mr. Cresswell and-him. It
was agreed that a verdict for the plaintiff; for £3,299 4s. 4d.,
should be taken, subject to a reference to a court of equity.
TAYLOR V. FRANKLIN AND ANOTHER.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for £4BO. The
plaintiff was Mr. Mark Taylor, high-sheriff of Dublin, and
the defendants Mr. Benjamin Woolff Franklin and Mr.
Abraham Lewis Franklin, bullion-merchants, of Liverpool.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Cresswell and Mr. Watsbn for the defendants.
Mr. COWLING having opened the pleadings,
Mr. ALEXANDER proceeded to state .the case. He said
that the action was on a bill of exchange for £4BO, dated 9th
March, 1839, drawn at three months by Mr. William Jonei
on Mr. George Laing •, by them endorsed to the Central
Bank of Liverpool, and by the bank to the defendants. The
defendants first pleaded that there was no endorsement to
them by the Central Bank, and next, that there was no en-
dorsement by them to the plaintiff. He believed that in the
month of March last the bill was discounted by the plaintiff
to Mr. Mooney, the manager of a bank in Ireland; it was
not endorsed by the two defendants, but by their agent, Mr.
Phineas Franklin, who produced an authority empowering
him to do so. When the bill was dishonoured, a communi-
cation was opened between the parties ; in consequence of
which Mr. Armstrong, solicitor, of Dublin, came over, and
had an interview with Mr. Franklin, who informed him that
they were then in an embarrassed state ; that they were
about to offer five shillings in the pound to the creditors, and
that Mr. Armstrong had better wait until they saw what was
done. Ultimately the defendants refused to pay the bill.
At that time there was no more thought of what had been set
on the record than there was of the man in the moon. He
understood that there was something to be put forth relative
to a dissolution of partnership between the defendants; but
into that he should refrain from entering, unless it were in-
troduced on the other side. At present he should look upon
the action as one brought by the endorsee against the en-
dorser, and if anything about the defendants,not being in bu-
siness together was brought forward, he then should see what
course to take. He should like to know how, after having
paid his £4BO, Mr. Taylor was to be juggled out of it in some
way that was certainly not honest.
Mr. Henry Taylor examined.—He stated that he was at
present a bullion merchant in this town, and knew the defend-
ants, in whose employ he had been ahout three years ago.
Mr. Benjamin Woolf Franklin and Mr. Abraham Lewis
Franklin then carried on business in partnership, as bullion-
merchants. The name of the firm as inscribed on the door,
then was—" B. W. and A. Franklin." He understood that
an alteration had taken place in the partnership ; he judged
from the alteration of the name on the door. That was altered
to " B. W. Franklin and Co." and on another door was put
up " Franklin and Brothers." He could not tell at what
time the alteration had been made. He knew the handwriting
of Mr. Abraham Lewis Franklin. [The authority by which
Mr. Phineas Franklin acted on the transaction was shown to
the witness,' and he deposed that the signature was in the
handwriting of Mr. Abraham L. Franklin. A bill of the 3d
February, endorsed by B. W. Franklin and Co. was also
shown to him, and he deposed that that signature was the
writing of Abraham L. Franklin.]
Cross-examined.—When he was in the, employ of Messrs.
Franklin, he was a watchmaker. He was not a journeyman.
He should not know exactly what to call himself. He made
watches for them, and received weekly wages, 25s per week.
Mr. John Armstrong.—He was the attorney for the plain-
tiff, and lived in Dublin. On the 22d June last, he applied
to Benjamin Woolff Franklin about the bill. - On presenting
the bill, he (Mr. B. W. Franklin) said that it had been passed
to Mr. Mooney; that an offer of 5s in the pound had been
made to Mooney ; that his affairs were in the hands of a so-
licitor, and he thereforo.could not then give the 5s ; and that
in a few days his affairs would be submitted to his creditors,
of which they (witness and his client) should havenotice. He
believed that his client did receive notice.
Mr Henry Jacob.—He was a merchant at Manchester, and
knew the defendants. He recollected in February last, see-
ing Mr. Abraham Franklin at the bullion office' in Saint
George's-crescent. Witness told him that he had a lot of
watches which he had no objection to send to his (Mr. F's)
brother in New York. 'Mr. Abraham Franklin said that he
would speak to his brother Benjamin, and witness might
call again. He did call again on the same day, and saw both
of the brothers. An arrangement was entered into, by which
witness agreed to ship 11 gold watches, and 13 silver lever
watches, on receiving an advance of £l5O in cash. The
money was paid to him out of the till. They then said that
he was to accommodate them with his acceptance at three
.months' date for £165. He gave them his acceptance,
and they drew on him, but allowed the bill to be returned.
On the Ist of March he saw the defendants again, and they
said that Le must give them a memorandum of shipment.
He accordingly began to write it out, and commenced it with
" Messrs. B. W. and A. Franklin." One of them—he
thought it was Mr. Benjamin—then said, " Our firm is B.
W. Franklin and Co."
Cross examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—He saw Mr. Abra-
ham Franklin on the subject of the watches, on the 25th of
February last, in the office in St. George's-crescent. Some
junior branches of the .family might have been there. Mr.
Phineas Franklin might have been ; be was not certain ; but
be would swear that Joseph was there. When he went again
on the Ist of March, he saw Mr. Abraham there. Some of
the younger brothers might have been there ; but he could
not say whom, as his business was with Benjamin and Abra-
ham alone. He has known them to carry on business in
partnership for many years, perhaps a dozen, or fifteen or
twenty. They had conducted their business all that time as
B. W. and A. Franklin, previous to the Central Bank affair.
It was on the Ist of March he was told to alter the heading
of the letter. Abraham was then present. He was a mer-
chant, dealing in manufactured goods, watches, or any thing
else that was cheap. He speculated in. any thing that was
cheap, provided it was honest.
Re-examined.—The Central Bank stopped in April or May.
They said that Benjamin was the sole partner in the firm of
B. W. Franklin and Co. They said that they had dissolved
partnership. He looked into the Gazelle, and found the
dissolution.
Mr. Collins proved the hand-writing of Mr. Phineas Frank-
lin in the endorsement on the bill. It was " P. Franklin for
B. W. Franklin and Co."
The bill was then put in. The authority under which Mr.
Phineas Franklin ;hall acted in endorsing the bill was also
read, it was dated March 16, 1839, and was to the effect

that " Mr. Phineas Franklin has our authority to enter into
any contract on our behalf, and to sign bills and agreements
for us." It was signed B.W. Franklin and Co. The bill
of the 3d February, was also put in, as was the Gazette of
the 19th March, 1539, containing the dissolution of partner-
ship. It was as follows :—" The partnership hitherto exist-
ing between us, the undersigned, is this day dissolved by mu-
tual consent. All debts due by and owing to us will be paid
by Mr. Abraham Lewis Franklin." The advertisement was
dated March 15, and signed by Benjamin Woolff Franklin
-and Abraham Lewis Franklin.
Mr. John Dunn examined.—He is clerk in the Provincial
Bank of Ireland, of which Mooney is manager. He recol-
lected the bill of the 9th March being discounted by Mr.
Mooney on the 18th March, in Dublin.
Cross-examined.—The bank was the holder of other bills
endorsed by B. W. Franklin and Co. He did not know
whether Benjamin alone had been sued for the value of those
bills. On the-day after we got the bill, of the 9th March, it
was'endorsed to Mr. Taylor, high sheriff of Dublin.
Mr. CRESSWELL put it to his Lordship whether the en-
dorsement by Abraham had been proved.
His Lordship thought there was evidence to go to the jury. -
Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the Jury for his clients.
He thought that it would turn out that this was a very un-
just attempt to fix Mr. Abraham Franklin with the bill in
question, and to support it by evidence of the most wicked
and fraudulent kind, unless he was misinstructed. The case
rested entirely nn the evidence of Henry Taylor, and that
good person, Henry Jacobs ; and, if .demeanour went for
anything, it was natural to disregard anything that the latter
had said. It was for the Jury, however, to weigh the evi-
dence ; but this he might mention, that Jacobs would not
go uncontradicted as to the fact. Henry Taylor had been
called to make out that the bill had been endorsed by Abra-
ham Franklin, and the Jury would understand why the at-
tempt had been made, when he told them, that he was a much
more wealthy person than his brother Benjamin. They had
produced an authority to Phineas Franklin to accept bills for
the firm of B. W. Franklin. and Co., but they had given no
evidence that Abraham ever traded under that firm, except
the transaction alluded to by Jacobs, which could scarcely be
called trading under that form. With reference to the au-
thority of Phineas, Abraham would notle bound by it, un-
less it was made out that he was a partner in the firm of B.
W. Franklin and Co., therefore the Jury would well under-
stand why it was that the plaintiff had called a person to state,
that the authority was in the handwriting of Abraham. Whe-
ther the evidence of Taylor had originated in a mistake or
not, he would not say ; but it-must be well known to all how
easy it is for a person to be mistaken in the writing of a per-
son, especially when the individual called upon to give his
opinion ,was but little accustomed to distinguishing such
things, and was a very indifferent writer himself, as was pro-
ved by the specimen which he had asked the witness to give.
Mr. 13rocksop Aspinall examined by Mr. WATSON.—He
was manager of the Central Bank, in Liverpool, and had
been since November last. The bank stopped payment in
April last.- He knew the firm of B. W. and E. Franklin.
In the month of November that firm kept an account with
the bank. An account was afterwards opened with B. W.
Franklin and Co. The only person composing that firm was
Mr. B. W. Franklin. He knew the bill which was the sub-
Bct of the present action. It was endorsed by the Central
Bank to B. W. Franklin alone, as B. W. Franklin and Co.
Mr. Abraham had nothing to do with the firm. He was
acquainted with the handwriting of both the brothers. The
authority of the 16th of March (handed to witness) was in
the handwriting of Benjamin Woolff
,Franklin. The en-
dorsement of the bill (handed to witness) was also in the
handwriting of Benjamin, and not of Abraham.
Cross-examined.—Benjamin was the person who usually
came to the bank. Abraham sometimes came, and signed
per pro., for his brother. There was a new account begun
with Abraham, but the old account continued open till the
bank stopped in April.
Re-examined.—The old account continued open till the
time of the advertisement of the dissolution of partnership.
Mr. Phineas Franklin and Mr. Walter Franklin, brothers

of the defendants, both deposed that the endorsem'ent to the
bill and the authority to Phineas were in the handwriting of
Benjamin, and that the firm or B. W. Franklin and Co.
was composed of B. W. Franklin only.
Mr. Henry Hime was called to speak to the handwriting.
Mr. ALEXANDER replied, after which the learned JUDGE
summed up. at considerable length.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £484,
being the value of the bill, with interest thereon. We are
requested to state that Mr. Henry Hime was not the attor-
ney for the defendants in this cause, as stated in the Courier
of Wednesday.