The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

SHEEP STEALING

Cornelius France, 34, William Ashcroft, 33, and Hcnry
Highton, were charged with having, at Wigan, feloniously
stolen a sheep, the property of one Thomas Welsh.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins
the defence.

Thomas Welsh, a butcher, of Wigan, said he had a sheep
on the 9th of October, in a field, which he missed on the
following day. He afterwards saw the skin of a sheep, which
he knew from the skin to be his. He afterwards went to the
house of Cornelius France, where Ashcroft lived. He there
found part of a neck of mutton, part of a shoulder, and a
shank. He said that it was his, and that he had a foot that
would fit the shank. The prisoner was afterwards appre-
hended at a coal pit, by Mr. Whittle, constable, who was
accompanied by the witness.
Mr. Whittle, chief constable of Wigan, said that he saw
the mutton,. and afterwards took the prisoners France and
Ashcroft into custody. The prisoners said they had bought
it in the market place. France aftewards said that it would
be a had job for him. He afterwards said that he and High-
ton had gone into the field, that Highton had caught the
sheep ; that they cut its throat and flayed it ; and that they
afterwards took it to Highton's house, and that he got one
half of it, and they the other half.
Several persons deposed to having purchased mutton from
Highton.

Mr. Woodcock, magistrates' clerk, heard the prisoners
Ashcroft and France examined. On being cautioned, France
admitted that he was with Highton, and that the latter caught
the sheep, and that they killed and divided it. Ashcroft ad-
mitted this to be the fact.
Mr. WILKINS spoke for the defence of Higliton only. He
contended that what was said by the other prisoners was not
legal evidence against him. All that appeared therefore,
was, that be was selling some small quantities of mutton.
This, it might be said, was suspicious, but did not, he thought,
amount to absolute proof, and he therefore looked for an ac-
quittal, upon the doubts which must arise in the minds of
the jury.
The learned JUDGE directed the jury to find Fiance and
Ashcroft guilty, they having confessed. With respect to
Highton, the legal evidence amounted to only a case of sus-
picion.
The Jury found France and Ashcroft guilty, and Highton
not guilty.
His LORDS/11P, in addressing the two prisoners, said they
had been found guilty on the clearest evidence. The crime
was one which, if it continued to increase, the judges would
be compelled to visit with most severe punishment. The
present case was an aggravated one, the parties having acted
by previous concert. He would not, however, sentence the
tphreisoitnneprrs
sitoontne
trainistportation, but hoped they would benefit by
which they would have to undergo. The

prisoners were then sentenced to 18 months' imprisonmen
and hard labour in Kirkdale Gaol. •

F )RGERY

Richard Barlow,: 8, a resp e c tably-d ress ed man, stood in-
dicted with having, ,danchester, feloniously uttered and
paid to Joseph Seddon, a forged bill of exchange, for £492125,
purporting to be accepted by Leaf and Co., merchants,
London. . _ _

Mr. Joseph Seddon.—l am a banker in. Manchester, and
have four partners. On the 4th May last the prisoner pre-
sented the bill produced, drawn-by himself, and purporting
to be accepted on Leaf •and Co., -merehants,tLondon. . He
stated they were a branch of the house of Leaf and Co., and
a very rich house. The bill -was dishonoured and returned.
It wasdue ott the 18th August, and was returned ou the .20th.
Mr. BAINES defended the prisoner, Witness had known
the prisoner for 15 or 16 years. His friends were highly re-
spectable in Manchester. He had paid five bills previously
to the last, from £1,500 to £2,000, all of which were duly
honoured... .

Re-examined.—A bill made payable to a particular party
might be taken up without the knowledge of the acceptor.
Mr. Leaf,. partner of Leaf, Coles, & Co., said he was a
partner also of Leaf, Crofts,•& Co.—This bill is not in the
handwriting of any one -in either house authorised to sign
acceptances: I never saw this bill before.
Cross-examined.—l, take an -active part. in the•-firm of
Leaf, Coles, & Co., in the Old 'Change, but not in the other
in the Old Jewry. There is also a firm in London of Leaf,
Smith, and M`Dougal._ .: • - • -
John Smith, a police-officer, said,-1 received the pri-
soner into'custody at the ComPter. He said' lie had met at
Liverpool a young man named •Robert• Leaf,. who said be
was a nephew of Leaf & Co.. and that he had signed.the bill.
W'itn'ess asked him where Robert Leaf was, and prisoner
replied that he had been looking-after him in Liverpool and
London, but had not found him.
Cross-examined.—Messrs. Leaf & Co. have a great many
purchasers in the-country. I •'
Mr. Owen, a clerk to the hank of Messrs. Seddon & C 0.,.
heard the prisoner say that Leaf & Co., by whom the accep-
tance was signed, were a branch of the house of Messrs.
Leaf, Coles, & Co., of London.
Mr. BAINES addressed the jury, in an able manner, in
behalf of the prisoner, contending that he had been made
the dupe of an artful individual, who had represented him-
self as a party authorised to draw a bill on Leaf & Co., and
had himself escared from punishment, while he had left the
prisoner in the meshes of the law. He besought the jury
to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubts that arose in
the cage.
Many gentlemen of the highest' respectability, who had
known the prisoner a great number of years, gave him a most
•.excellent character. . • • .

The learned JUDGE summed up: He stated that a party
making use of another party's name, by putting it to a bill,
even though he hoped to be able to take it up, was in law
guilty. of forgery ; and stated that thequestion was, did the
prisoner know, or did he not know, that the bill when he ut-
tered it was a forgery.
The jury retired, and 'after an absence of fifteen minutes
returned a verdict of Guilty.
Thelrsentence was deferred until this day.
STABBING AND CUTTING.

William Harney, aged 32, stood c.harged with having, at
AsMop-under-Lytle, feloniously and: maliciously stabbed
and wounded John Degnan.

Dr. BROWN conduciCd the defence....
John Degnan said that on the 3d.fugust last he was in-
vited into James Harney's house; by 'inself, to dinner, and
saw there William Harney and others. James spoke of
some disturbances lgt Staley Bridge, and witness said he
wished they were done away with, forihe had no spite at any
one. Wm. Harney said, "I am not sd-with you," and took
the pOker and struck me on the nose ft violent blow, which
cut me. James Harney then took a. Anne from the table,
and cid me in the cheek. I was afterwards kicked, and
became insensible. I was here af;t4he last Assizes, when
JameS- Harney and the other man whogstruck me were here.
Sarah Hunt said she heard Jame Harney ask Degnan
iu. Witness advised him not to come in. James Harney
said lie was as welcome as the flowers Of May. They after-
wards talked about the disturbances amongst the men at
Staley Bridge, and the prisoner and his brother struck at him
several times, one with a poker, another with a piece of wood,
and JameS Harney stabbed him with a knife. There were
four upon him. Witness cried murder, and got Degnan out.
He was taken home in a state of insensibility. He lodged
with witness. They said they were happy to see the blood
of .a Connaught man flow. Witness, in reply to the judge,
said that the quarrelling parties were Munster and Connaught
men, and that she and her husband were from Connaught
and the prisoner from Munster.
D. Vaughan, of Stalybridge, saw the prosecutor the same
night. There was an incised wound on the left cheek. ? A
contused wound across the nose. The cuticle was entirely
separated. There were appearances of other blows all over
the head. He was seriously ill for two or three days.
The prisoner said he hoped his lordship would mercifully
consider'his case ; and take into account that he had been
nine months in prison.
The learned JUDGE proceeded to pass sentence. His
lordship sai l that the prisoner had been found guilty of
taking part in a grievous assault, for which three indivi-
duals had, at the last assizes been tried, and being found
guilty, one of them was sentenced to three years' imprison-
ment, and the other two to eighteen months each. He was
not sure, if the parties had not been tried before; but he
' would have found it necessary to visit the prisoner with
transportation. This was no disparagement to the manner
in which his predecessor had punished those who had taken
part in this offence ; because it was the determination of the
judges, finding that the crime continued to increase, to visit
it in future, with the utmost severity of ..the law. True, the.
prisoner's was not the hand that used the.knife, but being of
a party who united in attacking the ' prosecutor, he was
equally guilty in law of the act. oletztting-. He (the Judge)
should, however, take into account the time during which
the prisoner had been in prison, (since 'September last),
and would on that account abridge the term .of imprison-
ment which he would otherwise- have had to undergo. He
did hope:that he would never again have recourse to deadly
weapons, and. that his case would. furnish 'a- wholesome ex-
ample to others in the same line of life. The -sentence of
the Court was, that the prisoner should be imprisoned in
Kirkdale gaol for two yearx, and -that 'during that time he
should be kept to hard labour.
'John Griffiths, 2-1, was inaiiited on a charke of having, at
Royton, felOniously cut and -wounded one Hannah Hall,
with intent to. murder her. There wer=e btlicr counts in the
indictment, charging the assault as having an intent of minor
aggravation. .
_ _

Bitows: stated the case for the prosecution, as one of
a very aggravated deseription. The pitisoner was undefended.
Hannah 'Hall, an "elderly quakeress, said she was upwards
of 72 rears of.age, and kept a small shop at Royton. On the
27th December the prisoner came to her shop. She had
known' him beldre!-and asked him if lie worked 'at the same
plaCe. It was about nine o'clock at night, 1 live alone. 1
have no one helping me except on the seventh day. The 27th
Decerriber was a Friday. 1 was in the kitchen when he came
in. There is a lobby between the shop.- and the kitchen.
There is a front door to the lobby, the shop being, on one
side of it, and the kitchen on the other:- He' was in the lob-
by. He asked for a-loaf sand a half pound of cheese. lam
sure it was the prisoner. I went to fetch the loaf and cheese
from a back apartment, where I kept them. I went into the
shop to weigh the cheese. He stood near the shop door, in-
side the shop. While I was weighing the cheese, he asked
for half-a-pound of butter. The butter was in a cask on the
floor. 1 was standing upright when .1 weighed the cheese.
I had a candle with me. I took it in my hand, and was go-
ing to cut the butter, and I had to stoop down to do so. The
prisoner was about a yard from me. He struck me on the
left side of the head a very heavy blow. I suppose I fell,
and cannot tell much after then; lam not Conscious of hav-
ing felt any other blow, I found myself in the kitchen after-
wards, with a neighbour named Collins. I laid the cheese
on the counter after I had weighed it, and also the loaf. The
prisoner had not put out his hand to take either of them. I
am sure the prisoner is the man. The loaf or cheese were
not taken away, nor any thing else that I know.
John Collins said, I live neat door neighbour to the shop
of the last witness. About nine o'clock I heard a noise like
heavy blows lighting upon something. I went into Mr.
Hall's. The outer door was shut. 1 found all was dark.
1 felt my way till I got to the scales, and then I stopped. 1
turned round to come out, when I heard a groan. I found
the last witness lying on the floor. I raised her, and lifted
her into the lobby. She said, "Eh dear what is to do ?"
1 took her to the kitchen and got a light. She was very
bloody. The cut was off her head, and her hair hanging
down. She was insensible. She told me it was a young
man who did it. I went to go into the shop, but my light
went out in the lobby. I got another light. I found in the
shop the candlestick near where her head was, and the candle
on the floor, at some distance. Saw also the lid of the but-
ter cask which was broken in two. I got a medical man to
her. I heard like two struggles before I went out of my
house.
Robert Savage.—On the 27th December he was at a col-
liery, about a mile from Mr. Hall's. The prisoner worked
there on the 27th, but not for two or three days before.
Witness saw him covered up at the back of the engine boiler.
He ,vas there for three or four hours. He said he was going
to Turf Lane. To go there he must pass Mrs. Hall's. I
saw him about ten minutes after, and he said he had only
been at the other hut. (There was some discrepancies be-
tween the testimony of this witness and that which he gave
before the magistrates.)
Ratcliffe Scholfield saw the prisoner that night, and he
took a direction to a lane that leads towards Mrs. Hall's.
He came back in about ten minutes, and in about half an
hour afterwards lie was taken by the constable.
Another witness said, that he was in the lane that night,
and saw a man running in the direction of the coal pit.
Before I got home I found that somebody had welly killed
Mrs. Hall.
A Constable at Royton said—the colliery and Mr. Hall's
house are about 500 yards apart. After nine o'clock, on the
27th, I apprehended the prisoner at the engine-house of the
colliery. He wished to know what he was accused of. Wit-
ness did not inform him, but took him to Mrs. Hall's. Wit-
ness produced the lid of a butter tub, which had been broken.
He found no money or other articles on the prisoner, except
a collier's strap.
Mr. Earnshaw, surgeon, stated, that he found on Mrs.
Hall's head, neck, and shoulders, several wounds. Some of
these were triangular, and appeared to have been inflicted
with a sharp instrument. The wounds were not dangerous.
Mrs. Hall was under his care about a fortnight.
The prisoner declined saying anything in his defence,
merely repeating that he knew nothing of the charge.
The JUDGE summed up, and the jury found the prisoner
guilty
_of the assault, " with intent to do some grievous bodily
harm."
His LORDSHIP said the jury had found the prisoner guilty
of cutting and wounding, with intent to do grievous bodily
harm. That verdict would relieve him from a painful duty,
for had their finding been with intent to murder, for which
the punishment was still capital, he certainly should have
found great conscientious difficulty in not. leaving the law to
take its course. The prisoner had gone into the house of a
poor, defenceless old woman, and had inflicted upon her blow
after blow, and that with malicious severity. Although,
therefore, the prisoner's life would be spared, he must pre-
pare himself for a serious punishment. He hoped, however,
it would have a good effect on the prisoner, and a salutary one
on all who resorted to such' cruel and dangerous attacks upon
their fellow creatures. The sentence of the court was,• that
ha should be transported beyond the seas for the term of
fifteen years.
It being a few minutes past six o'clock, the court adjourned
until this day.

NISI PRIUS COURT.---MoNnAr.
(Before Mr. Justice Erskine.)
STARKIE V. RIMMEK.
This was an undefended action, to recover .-C7O from the
defendant, a chemist and druggist, in Scotland-road, Liver-
pool, part of £3OO agreed to be paid to Mr. Starkie for the
goodwill and stock-in-trade of the plaintiff, who formerly
carried on business in Scotlaud-road as cheniist and drug-
gist, and sold his business to the defe,ndant in July '1837.—
Verdict for the plaintiff. •

M'KENZIE V. JONES.
This was an action to recover £52 175., the balance of an
account owing by the defendant, who carries on business
at Liverpool under the style of R. G. Jones & Co. for coals
purchased from the plaintiff. The action was undefended.
—Verdict for the plaintiff.

BONNY V. WIIITEHEAD.
This was an action urought upon an award made by a re-
feree, appointed by the plaintiff, Mr. James Bonny, and the
defendant. Mr. John Whitehead, to determine the amount
of a debt standing between the two parties in 1838. The
amount of award was £630 2s. Gd. The action was unde-
fended.—Verdict for the plaintiff.