The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

MANSLAUGHTER.

John Skerratt, 38, a labourer, of Manchester, was charged
with the manslaughter of James Grange, a lawyer, at Manches-
ter, on the 11th of February last, by the furious driving of a
coach.
. Mr. Pell appeared for the prosecution, and Dr. Browne for
the defendant.
Joseph Hawksworth depcised that he got upon the coach
driven by Skerrett, which plied between: Bury and Manches:
ter, abotit a mile on this side
of Bury. There was eleven per-
sons on the outside, and five inside, one of whom was the wife
of the driver. He described the coach as having proceeded at
a rapid rate, and the body of it swung so much from side to
side that he was somewhat alarnied—the wife of the driver was
vet y much so. Shortly after the coach had descended Cheet7
ham-hill. (a very, slight descent,) it upset, and was dragged, w
it lay sideways on the ground, a considerable space. He ob•
served the deceased, James Grange. among the passengers; hot
after the accident he did not take particular notice of him. An
omnibus came up at the time, and those who lay on tha grouni
were put into' it. Several other witnesses were called, one 0
whom deposed that the coach, though going at a pretty rapic
pace, did not exceed more than nine miles an hour, and that 0.
driver was perfectly sober; though all declared that it "swagged'
or swayed about from side to side. Others deposed that th.
speed was from 12 to 15 miles; the witness who computed th
speed at 15 miles, admitted that he was not accustomed to suet
calculations. .

Henry Sugden saw the coach upset, and ran to the spot
when he saw Mr. Grange lying on his back on the road; th,

blood was streaming from his mouth and nose, and he appeared
totally insensible.
Mr. LoMax, house-surgeon of the Infirmary, at Manchester,
deposed to receiving Mr. Grange on the Sunday evening be-
tween eight and nine o'clock ; he died at four on the following
morning. The cause of death was fracture of the brain.
Dr. BROWN addressed the jury in defence of the prisoner..
The accident he attributed to some defect in the coach, of which,
as the prisoner was not the regular driver, he must have been
ignorant.. Besides, the evidence had not destinctly shown that
there was any thing like furious driving; on the contrary,
Entwistle, who had suffered severely himself, and still more
deeply in the person of his silt], had deposed. that he had fre-
quently gone at a much quicker speed, and that he himself was
not in the least alarmed. The fact, too, of the prisoner's wife
having been in the coach was a sufficient guarantee that care
had been taken by him in driving.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
BIGAMY. _

Joseph Bucksley was charged with bigamy. It appeared from
the statement of the prisoner that he had had various disagree-
ments and temporary separations from his first wife, Susannah
Lord, who was continually desiring him to go and reside with
her mother. To this he would not for some time consent; but
though he did so at length, it did nut lead to the peace which he
anticipated. He accordingly left, telling his wife that, if she
was willing to live with hint, he would take a house, but that
he could no more reside at her mother's. He went one day to
the house of his wife's mother, on purpose to see his wife; but
they told him that he had no occasion to come there any more,
as Sarah" had got married to another person. On hearing
this, the prisoner determined, as he said, to bring the affair to
a conclusion, and, to "get shut altogether of his first wife,"
married a young woman named Susannah Taylor, to whom he
distinctly related his situation, and she notwithstanding his
previous marriage, consented to unite herself with him. He
was found guilty, and the learned Judge, preViously to passing
sentence, remarked that though the prisoner had acted under a
delusion in fancying that he could by any..procteding dissolve
the marriage with his first wile, yet, as he had not led the second
wife into forming a connection with him by denying or conceal-
ing, from her his previous marriage, his case might be looked
upon as less criminal. He, however, stated, that from certifi-
cates which had been handed into the court, he found that the
prisoner's charges against his wife were unfounded; she was
described as a modest and irreproachable character in those
certificates. The prisoner was sentenced to two months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.
Daniel Hat, 26. of Ashton-under-Lyne, was charged with
having, while his first wife was alive, married Elizabeth Robin-
son, at Oldham. Mr. Peel appeared for the prosecution, and
briefly stated the case. Ellen Marsden proved the fact of the
first marriage with Frances Ellis, at Ashton. She was about
26. They lived together about three or four months, and then
he went off to Liverpool. He returned and lived with her two
or three weeks, before he finally abandoned her. Elizabeth
Robinson herself was examined. Sbe deposed that she had
known the prisoner about four years. She had heard that he
had another wife, but he denied the fact, saying that she had
died of fever of the brain. Told her so several times. She had
been married three years on the ',lilt Sept. next. On the
morning of the marriage, she had been told that he bad a wife
living; asked him, and he again denied it. She believed him.
About a year and seven months after the marriage, the first
wife came over; she lived with him a little while after that cir-
cumstance, and than left him. The child she had in her arms
was the prisoner's. Joseph Wiede, the deputy constable of
Oldham, deposed to having arrested the prisoner on the 4th of
January. He told him the charge, and prisoner said it was
all nonsense. He afterwards told him where his first wife was
living—she was a servant in a public-house at Ashton-under-
Lyne.

The prisoner, who was a countryman, made rather a curious
defence: he said, "Th' first woife o' mine left me abaut threw
months after I had wed her; and I Beet agate with this other.
I told her I was wed, and oo said oo had been made a foo on
once before, and oo would not have we. Well, I said, I caunt
help that; I wuz wed ; but for a' that oo kept following me,
and telling me what oo would do'if I would not wed her. One
morning oo met me when I was gooing to work with William
Cross and two others, and oo said if I would not have her, 00.
would make away with herself before neet. So we went to a
public-house to Beet a glass of ale, and then Wm. Cross came
back to see why I wur stopping. Why, says I, we're gooing to
have a wedding. Well, we went, and had a wedding; but Wm.
CroSs toad her I wur married before-baud."
The JUDGE said that the case was sufficiently clear. The
prisoner Moiself admitted the fact, but seemed to think he was
to escape all liability in consequence, as he declared, of having
made known to his second wife the fact of his previous mar-
riage. But whether he had done so or not, he was equally liable
•
to punishment for the offence.
_ _

The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to 6 months
imprisonment, with hard labour.
Sarah Brown, 31, was indicted for having feloniously married
one James liardcastle, at Rochdale, on the first October last,
her first husband, Edward Brown, being then alive. 'The pri-
soner pleaded guilty. She handed in a memorial to the court,
which having been read by the learned Judge, he stated, that
if she brought her mother to testify to what was therein con-
tained, it would certainly affect the extent of her punishment.
William Seddon was indicted for bigamy. He had married,
on the 28th August last, Ellen Loft house, spinster, his first
Wife, by whom he had three children, being alive. The prisoner
pleaded guilty; but stated, in extenuation, that his first wife
had not behaved herself welltowards him. He was sentenced
to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six calendar
months.