The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-24 00:00:00

CROWN COURT.-YESTERDAY.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PATTISON.

The learned Judge took his seat in this court to-day
at twelve o'clock, when, after the usual preliminaries had
been gone through. the following gentlemen were sworn of
TIIE GRAND JURY:
Wm. Blundell, of Crosby-hall. Foreman.
Sir T. Brancker, Kat.. Liverpool.
R. A. Alison, Esq.. Park-hall. •
Richard Ashton, Esq., Liverpool.
James Aspinall, Esq., Liverpool.
John Bentley, Esq., Birch-house.
Stephen Blair, Esq., Mill-hill.
Jae. Bourne, Esq., Heathfield-honse.
Chisenhall Chisenhall, Esq., Arley-hall.
John Crossley, Esq.. Scaitcliff.
John Frederick Foster, Esq., Priory Sale.
Edmund Grundy, Esq., Bury.
Alexander Fowden Haliburtcn, Esq., Whitley.
Adam Hodgson, I- sq., Everton.
David Hodgson, Esq., Mayor of Liverpool.
Ben. Heywood Jones, Esq., Larkhill, near Liverpool.
John Frederick Lees, Esq., Wet neth.
Robert Lomax, Esq., Lomax Fold.
Daniel Neilso a Esq., Liverpool.
James Rigby, Esq., Moss-house,
Sam. Taylor, Esq Eceleston-hall.
Henry Tempest, Esq., Newland's-park.
Wm. Gerard Walmsley, Esq.. Westwood-house.
His Loananir then proceeded to deliver his charge to the
Grand Jury. He said he had a calendar before him containing
some sixty-two or three names, but there were several important
cases which were not in the calendar, because the parties were
out on bail. On the whole, however, there were a consieerable
number of cases, and some of them for offences of a very serious
character undoubtedly, but there did not appear. so far as he was
aware, many cases of the ordinary description, and he therefore
inferred that they had been cleared away at the Quarter Sessions,
leaving a considerable number charged with serious personal
violence, breaking into houses, and some other things, which
cannot he tried at the sessions, There were several cases of
personal violence, including some for murder ; a good many for
maliciously wounding with int. nt to murder, or to do some
grievous bodily harm and so forth. His Lordship, however, had
not been able to read over the whole of the depositions, as in
consequence of the amount of business at York, he had been
unable to leave there until ten o'clock on Saturday night, and
therefore he would only be able to look through the depositions
in a very cursory manner, and not with that care he could have
wished. He was, however, happy to observe that, so far as he
had seen, there was no case of manslaughter arising out of a
practice once prevalent in this county, namely, that of up and
down fighting; and therefore he hoped the practice was discon.
tinued. He did not mean to detain the grand jury long with
any observations on the cases likely to occupy their attention,
as although he had not been on this circuit for some years, yet
he recognised some gentlemen whom, he was satisfied, were
well acquainted with the nature of those duties. There were in
the calendar three cases where the parties were charged with
the crime of wilful murder, and he thought all of them on the
Coroner's inquisition. The most serious of them, it it be brought
home to the prisoner at all, was clearly a case of murder and
nothing else. It was the case of a person named Nathaniel
Currie, charged with the wilful murder of Ann Ellison, at New-
ton. It appeared from the depositions that there was some et i-
dence of violence having been offered to the deceased a
considerable time before the death, and he thought there was a
good deal in those depositions which was not evidence at all.
Pethaps, however, it was not necessary foe the grand jury to
enquire minutely into that matter, as it would be better consi-
dered before that court. There were, however, some extraor-
dinary circumstances stated to have taken place about eighteen
months before the time of the death of the deceased. It appeared
he was a married man, and the overlooker of a factory, the de-
ceased working under him, and that she was pregnant to the
prisoner, and he had read a book to her some eighteen months'
ago which, it is pretended, was for a particular purpose.
These were cases where it was necessary to introduce a variety
of circumstances, and it was almost impossible to say that they
might not, in some degree, hear upon the qu- stion, because in
cases of that kind it was always necessary to ascertain, if it
could be done, what was the motive. Now, the motive in the
present case was alleged to be that the priscner, being aware of
the situation of the deceased, in order to prevent exposure and
the loss of his situation, had destroyed her. There were
two young women who saw him wih a young woman
whom they did not know, near the spot where the hody
was found; but they speak to a remarkable bonnet which
was afterwards found in the water. and they swear par-
ticularly to the person of the prisoner. Shortly after cries
of murder were heard, and another person saw a man and
woman together; but there is some doubt whether the witness
is speaking to the same person. It might be so, or it might not.
However, the body is found in the water, arid there was no
accounting for how it came there. There were some marks of
violence on the body, and a wound on the lip, and there were
circumstances which probably would induce the Grand Jury to
put the party on his trial. Whether, however, they found a bill
or not, the party might be tried, as there was a co oner's inqui-
sition. Another case was that of John Fairclough, for the wil-
ful murder of John Curaiffe, at St. Helens. He, also, was com-
mitted on the verdict of a coroner's jury. That might very
likely turn out to be manslaughter. It might, however, be mur-
der, as there might be circumstances connected with It which he
(the learned Judge) was not aware. The third case was that of
a Woman of the town, who was killed by stabbing. It stood No.
54 in the calendar, and was a charge against Sarah Swift for the
murder of Elizabeth M'Gill. at Liverpool. It appeared from the
early part of the evidence, that the deceased struck the prisoner
a blow, and provoked her very much in the early part of the day,
some four or five hours previous to the transaction. This made
the prisoner very angry, and there was evidence to show that
she used very strong observations as to what she would do—
that she would have a knife ready, and would lie in wait for the
deceased. Then it appeared that when they met in the evening
the deceased attacked the prisoner first; but if she was lykg in
wait with a deadly weapon• intending to use it, then, although
the deceased did make the first attack, it would be murder. A
good deal, however, would depend upon the construction to be
put upon the language used by the prisoner. It did not appear
that the witnesses were of that character which entit'ed their
evidence to the most implicit credit. That was, however, for the
Grand. Jury to judge of. These were all the cases of murder in
the ca'endar. Besides these, were several cases of manslaughter,
and one or two of a very extraordinary kind, One against a
person of the name of Howell, who is the manager of the Ha-
warden Iron Works, who is charged with manslaughter. in con-
sequence of an iron tank, which had been supplied by that com-
pany to the Liverpool and Harrington Water Works, bursting,
which knocked down a house, and killed several persons,
amongst \ whom was the deceased. The coroner's jury had
found a verdict of manslaughter against John Howell; but it
appeared from the depositions that he had nothing to do with
the erection of the tank himself. The building of it was under
the superintendence of another servant of the Hawarden Com-
pany, who is supposed not to be to blame at all. Now, the sci-
entific persons who were examined before the Coroner differ
as to what was the cause of tl.e bursting of the tank.
On the one hand many swear that the foundation on which it
was erected was good— others say that though it was extremely
well built, yet that there ;was a mixture of new and old work
which did not join well together, and they attribute the bursting
to that. If that be so theta is no pretence for charging Mr.
Howell with •maralaughter. ether witnesses say there tits no
fault in the foundation, but none of them so far as ;he could see,
say there was any fault in the itonwcrk—the Wks were good
—the plates were strung enough, but some of them say it was
thought the iron stays were not saffoient in number, and : ot
properly placed. The conjecture that tt was owing to that ci r.
curnstaLce that the tank burst, and 'mon that oundation there
' was a verdict of manslaughter. It certainly did appear to to
very extraordinary. A man was not to be found guilty of
felony even for an error in judiar ent, but for come gross negli-
gence or want of proper care, and surely a person could not
sullty of manslaughter 11/31.M6 it W.= Alvin( that by some