The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-16 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.

At six o'clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. Justice COLTMAN
and Baron MAULE arrived here from Lancaster, and imme-
diately proceeded to the court-house,, when the usual pro-
clamation for opening the court having been read, the
business was postponed until the following morning. Mr.
Justice Coltman presides in the Crown court, and Baron
Maule in the Nisi Prius court.

On Wednesday morning, their lordships attended divine
service in St. George's Church, after which they proceeded
to their respective courts.

CROWN COURT.
The following gentlemen were sworn as members of the
Grand Jury.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, Foreman.
Sir Thomas Brancker,
Peter Bourne, Esq.,
Hugh Hornby Birley, Esq.,
Sir George Drinkwater,
Pattison Ellames, Esq.,
John Formby, Esq.,
William Garnett, Esq.,
John Pemberton Heywood, Esq.,
Joseph Hornby, Esq.,
Adam Hodgson, Esq.,
John Speir Heron, Esq.,
Charles Horsfall, Esq.,
John Hodgson Kearsley, Esq.,
Thomas Potter, Esq.
Theodore Woolman Esq.,
Esq.,
Samuel Staniforth, Esq.,
Ralph Thicknesse, jun. Esq.,
The Hon. R. 13.• Wilbraham,
George William Wood, Esq.
The proclamation for the encouragement of piety and
virtue, and for the restraining of immorality and vice having
been read,'

His Lordship proceeded to deliver his charge :—He said
that on examining the calendar, he found that it contained a
number of of of a'very serious description. In looking
over the calendar, what first naturally attracted the attention
were the cases of wilful Murder, where they existed, and hA
was sorry to perceive that not less than three of that nature
were to be brcught before them. He: did not: prceive that
any of them were marked by any features of deep andde-
liberate design beforehand, as far at-least as he could judge
from the depositions. Two of them were cases of stabbing
—(Francis Jooreens and Daniel Cole)—and the' third: -was a
person of the name of Heywood, whose case did not call any
particular observations, except that it was a -somewhat ob-
scure case, and would require investigation On • the part of
the grand jury. Re thought that Heywood must be tried
for murder, as he had been committed on that charge by the
coroner. That, however, must be left to the decision of the
gentlemen of the grand jury themselves. There were also
a great many cases of manslaughter, as many, he thought,
`as eleven, independent of- the cases of murder. A great part
cf.thetn were cases of a Aiseription not marked by an feature
alf atrocity, and had occurre,d in quarrels between the parties.
There was one case of a- captain of a steam-vessel running
down a small boat in the Mersey. The jury were perfectly.
well aware that a party in possession of a vessel of that des-
cription, was hound to use the greatest care in crowded places
such as the _river Mersey : and if they were of opinion that
there had been- a- want of due care on the part of the captain,
he should be put to his trial for manslaughter. There was
but one • case amongst those of manslaughter 'which called
for observation on his part—that of James Nunan. In that
case ittappeared that death had been inflicted by a very violent
blow of a sledge hammer, used with both hands. As that
was an instrument of a deadly nature, it might give rise to a
notion that Nunan should have been put on his trial for man-
slaughter. However, it was for murder in the coroner's in-
quest, and if there were not circumstances which, in their
opinion, would mitigate it to manslaughter, they must find
accordingly. It appeared that the blow had been inflict-
ed under circumstances of provocation, and after blows
had been given. Whether the verdict on the coroner's in-
quest was right or not was a matter for their consideration,
Independed of these cases, there were many others of extreme
violence—cases of wounding—some of which were of a
capital nature, and others not. For the most-part they were
cases of stabbing. It was a matter much to be regretted
that, judging from the matters passing there and at other
assizes, the offence of wounding and stabbing had become
much more frequent than it formerly was. They were
well aware that, until a recent period, the crime of
stabbing with any intent was a capital offence. The legisla-
ture, however, in its wisdom, had thought it advisable
that the offence should no longer be a capital one, except
deliberately attempted. The result, he was sorry to say,
had been, that persons of ungovernable temper had felt
themselves under less restraint than when the offence was a
capital one. He did slot mean to say that the legislature had
not acted wisely in altering the law ; but in judging of such
alterations it was,necessary to look at consequences, and he
thought that the results were such as he had stated. There
were two cases of violence, and there was one man against
whom a bill had been found, and against whom, possibly,•
some other charges might be found. Those cases were
extremely unpleasant and highly disgusting ; but it was
necessary that they should do their duty firmly, however un-
pleasant it might be. If on investigation it appeared satis-
factory to them that there was some consent on the
part of the woman, it was desirable to spare a public
investigation of cases of that nature ; but, if such did not
appear distinctly to be the fact, it was better to undergo the
pain of a public trial than that the matter should be repressed
without examination. The next cases on which he should
remark, were those of robbery and burglary, and, judging
from the state of the calendar, the proceedings of the legis-
lature with respect to those charges seemed to have been
attended with satisfactory results, because he found no state
of violence accompanying burglary, and only one in highway
robbery. Probably cases of both kinds might have been
punished at the sessions; but, inasmuch as he found none in
the calendar, he presumed that the intention of the legisla-
ture, in drawing a mark of distinction between cases accom-.
panied with violence and those merely of abstraction-of pro-
perty, had drawn the attention of such persons as were
addicted to those crimes, and caused them to abstain from
adding to their guilt by violence. There was also another
class of cases in the calendar. There were a considerable
number of persons against whom, he presumed, bills would
be presented, on charges connected with sedition, or military
training, or other offences of that nature. No one could ,
have observed what was going on in the country without
seeing that there was many misguided persons perfectly igno-
rant of their own rights, and, he was afraid, very indifferent
to moral obligations,,goipg about the country preaching doc-
trines which it was necessary to meet with the vigour of the
law. As long as they confined themselves to the expression of
opinions which they might honestly conceive to be beneficial
to the country, the law could not take hold of them ; but
when they came to attempt, by force and violence, by intimi-
dation, and by other means of that description, to compel
the adoption of other courses than those pursued, they came
within the law, which must be put in force with vigour. The
learned judge mentioned that there were a considerable number
of other cases. amongst which were some Mint prosecutions,
and cases of bigamy, and embezzlement, but they presented
no features of novelty, and required no particular remark.
The grand jury then retired.

CUTTING WITH INTENT TO KILL.
George Whittaker, 33, a wood-turner, was indicted for
having, at Manchester, on Wednesday, the 13th March last,
feloniously assaulted and struck Sarah Whittaker, his wife,
with intent to kill her. There were other counts in the in-
dictment, varying the charge, and stating the assault to be
with intent to wound and hurt.

Mr. BRANDT conductediite prosecution.
was undefended.

The prisoner

Mr. BRANDT, in stating the case, said that it was accom-
panied with such circumstances of atrocity, as could scarcely
be accounted for on any other supposition than insanity. It
would, however, rest with the prisoner to establish that such
had been the case.
The first witness called was
Sarah Whittaker, the wife of the prisoner, who deposed
that she left the house of her husband on the morning of
Wednesday, the 13th March, in consequenceof ill usage. On
the previous evening he came home intoxicated, and charged
her with having two men concealed in bed ; and, taking up
an axe, he swore, if she did not show him the men, he wool
kill her. Witness staid up .all night, as shenever went to bed
with her husband when he was tipsy. He also staid up all
night, quarrelling. In the morning she left the house, and
went first to her husband's cousin, and thence to her own
mother's. The prisoner came there on Sunday, and said that
if she would go and live with him again, he would behave to
her better than he ever had done before. After some solici-
tation, she consented to go with him to his brother's house.
When there, and in the course of the day, he made a request
to her with which she refused at first to comply, on the score
of delicacy. She, however, at last consented, and went with
him into a parlour, where there were a couple of beds. After
he had risen from the bed, he went and locked the room door,
and, without uttering a word, he took up an axe which was
used by him in his work, and struck her three or four blows
on the head. She raised her hands to save herself, but he
continued to strike, and cut off two fingers of her right hand,
three of the fingers of her left hand, above the second joint,
and inflicted several wounds on her face, forehead, and under
the left eye. She screamed out " Murder," and the door
was forced open by the persons attracted by her cries. The
prisoner was sober at the time, though he had had a little
drink.

Other evidence corroborative of this statement was pro-
duced. The surgeon who was called in deposed that the
wounds were so severe that at first he had not the slightest
hope of her recovery.
A voluntary examination of the witness read at the time of
his examination before the magistrates was put in, in which
he acknowledged that he was guilty, but stated that he had
been driven frantic by the dissolute conduct of his wife. It
was well known that when he had been drinking, too, he
knew very little of what he was doing.
The prisoner, being asked Wtetliere had anything t 6 say,
put in a long written address, giving a full detail of the mat-
ters in which theassault had its origin. His wife had not
been a drunken woman, but she began to form a close inti-
macy with a very drunken woman named Walker, who kept
a lodging-house for men. This irritated him greatly, and he
several times chastised her, but without effect. When he
found that his wife had left him, he him Self, though a hard-
working sober man, who loved his wife and children, was
driven into frenzy, and he left his work, took to drinking.
and continued in that way until he found his wife on the Sun-
day. They then accommodated matters—all appearance of
uneasiness and spleen vanished in an embrace, and he loved
his wife above all the world. How it came that he rose from
bed and acted in the manner charged against him he could
not say.• Madness must have taken possession of him ; for
when his senses revived, and he saw his beloved wife standing
before him, covered with blood, his sensations were inde-
scribable. The more, however, he loved her, the more was
he irritated when he found her preferring the society of a
most drunken woman to that of her own husband and chil li
-
dren (of which there were four.)
The learned Judge, in summing up, said that the case was
certainly a very distressing one. He was charged with an
assault with intent to kill, but subsequent counts made it
with intent to maim, or to do grievous bodily harm, thus re-
moving it out of the list of capital offences. It would be for
the jury to decide with what intent the prisoner had assaulted
his wife. As this was one out of the common course of these
cases, he had thought it right to enquire from the witnesses
whether the prisoner was a man at all subject to insanity;
for, if this were the case,he would be entitled to be acquitted
of the charge. The answers of the witnesses, however, did
not appear to come up to that point which would warrant an
acquittal on the score of insanity. As far as the evidence
went, the prisoner appeared competent to know what he was
doing ; and though, when heated with liquor, he might be
very violent, that he did not constitute such a state as could
be regarded as insanity ; and allow him to be acquitted, The
learned Judge then went through the evidence, and said, that
from all the circumstances of the case, it appeared that the
prisoner had been actuated by a feeling of unfounded jealousy.
The jury, after about ten minutes' consultation, returned
a verdict of guilty on the first count of the indictmerit.--Sen
tence deferred.