The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-12-14 00:00:00

STABBING.

William Halliwell, (on bail,) and Margaret Haddocks,
24, were indicted for having stabbed Jane Wright, at
Manchester, on the 27th September last, with intent to
maim, disable, or to do her some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Monk was for the prosecution, and Mr. Joseph
Pollock appeared for the prisoner Halliwell.
The prisoner Maddocks and the prosecutrix are both
prostitutes, and were drinking together at the beer house
of the prisoner Halliwell, in Fib-street, Manchester,
when a fight took place between them, and the female
prisoner took up a table knife, and stabbed the prosecu-
trix on the left cheek. The only point against Halliwell
was, that in the fight he said to Maddocks `• go into her,
give it her."
Under the direction of his Lordship, the jury found the
male prisoner guilty of an assault only. The other pri-
soner was found guilty of the felony.—Sentence deferred.
The Court adjourned at half-past six.

(Before Sr THOMAS COLTMAN.)
The learned justice took his seat shortly after eleven
o'clock, but owing to some delay in the arrival from the
country of some necessary witnesses, business was not
proceeded with before half-past eleven o'clock, when, the
.jury having been previously sworn, John _Howard was in-
dicted for perjury, committed at the magistrates court of
Ormskirk.

The case was stated by Mr. Mosx.
Thomas Hignett was examined by that gentleman. He
said that he was clerk to Mr. Wright, magistrates' clerk,
at Ormskirk. He produced an application for a summons
against Wm. Hodge, for maintenance of an illegitimate
child, which summons being grinted, and the case brought
for hearing before the magistrates, the prisoner appeared
to prove that the mother of that child had carried on an
improper connection with another man ; but the magis-
trates having doubted his testimony, committed him to
the assizes on the charge of perjury. The perjury having
been proved by the mother of the child, and also by the
party charged as having had this improper connection
with her, the prisoner stated in his defence, that all he
had said at Ormskirk was " the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth." On the suggestion of the
judge, the prisoner agreed to have Dorothy Threlfall (who
was also in custody on a similar charge, arisising out of
the same case) examined in his behalf.- She stated that
she had ocular demonstration, more than once, of facts
that proved the statement made by the prisoner, on which
the alleged charge of perjury was made, to be perfectly
true. On cross-examination, however, she became stu-
pidly dumb, and would not reply to the simplest question.
The learned judge, who had had her brought into the
witness box, ordered her back into confinement. A man
named Rimmer was next examined in prisoner's behalf:
he stated that he saw the man and woman together, and
that they left a lane where they were standing, and went
to the end of a barn. He afterwards spoke to the woman
about this circumstance, charging her with it.
Mr. MoNic addressed the jury for the prosecution, urg-
ing that the witnesses just heard were unworthy of belief,
and that there was every reason to believe the straight-
forward evidence of the young woman Hodge.
The learned JUDGE, in summing up, adverted to the
contradictory nature of the evidence, the heads of which
he recapitulated.
The jury instantly returned a verdict of "Not guilty,"
and the prisoner was discharged.
Dorothy Thelfall, indicted for a similar offence was
then brought up, but Mr. MONK stated that as the evi-
dence was the same as that adduced in the last case,
he. should not offer it. The learned judge said both
cases were involved in considerable mystery, and a con
viction could not be anticipated from it. The prisoner
was then formally discharged.

CASE OF SPEED, CHARGED WIAH MURDER.
Mr. POLLOCK, addressing his Lordship, said there was
a man named Speed who was charged with murder at the
last assizes, but as some time was required in order to

ascertain whether he laboured under any derangement in
the mind, the learned Judge directed that the case should
be passed to these assizes. He (Mr. Pollock) was coun-
sel for the prosecution on the former occasion, and was
in the same position ; and he had to state that on one
point the case stood as it formerly did. The prisoner had
no friends wherewith to employ counsel for his defence.
He (Mr. Pollock) could not as counsel for the prosecu-
tion do anything in the matter ; all that he could do was
to mention the fact to his Lordship. At the last assizes
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, finding the prisoner had no means
of employing counsel, kindly undertook to conduct the
defence ; but that gentleman not being now here, the
prisoner could not avail himself of his services. He re-
spectfully requested his Lordship to fix a day for a trial,
as was usual in such cases.

His Lordship said he could not then fix the precise day,
but he could consider it, and would communicate with
the learned counsel to-morrow, (this day).

KILLING AND SLAYING.

Thomas Crawley, aged 35, was indicted for having as-
saulted his wife, Eliza Crawley, on the 25th of September
last, by kicking her in such a manner as to cause her
death. It appeared that the prisoner, on the night in
question had gone home to his dwelling in a court in
Manchester, and found deceased in liquor, and his tea
unprepared. He became violently enlarged and kicked,
or " punched," the deceased in a delicate part of her
body, so that she screamed out, and afterwards bled pro-
fusely until within a short time of her death, which oc-
curred in a few minutes afterwards. The prisoner imme-
diately expressed his r6gret in presence of his daughter,
throwing his arms round her, and saying that he did not
wish to hurt a hair of her head. A surgeon was seat for,
and the prisoner gave himself up to the police when he
said, " I have ' punched ' my wife and accidentally killed
her."—Mr. BLAIR conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
TINDALL AntiNsoN the defence.

The prisoner had borne a good character for humanity.
The jury returned a verdict of " guilty."
The learned judge said that there was nothing of great
aggravation, and it appeared that, generally speaking, the
prisoner was a kind-hearted, domestic man, attached to
his family. Some punishment, however, was requisite,
and the prisoner must therefore be sentenced to three
months' imprisonment.