The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-24 00:00:00

CHARGE OF RAPE

James Bozaker, 31, was indicted on a charge of having, at
Great Bolton, committed a rape on the person of Mary Hil-
ton, a child, who, at the time the alleged offence was com-
mitted, was under ten years of age.

Mr. Atherton was interrupted in his opening address for
the prosecution by the Judge, who said, that, in looking at
the indictment, he found that the word " feloniously," with
reference to the designation of the offence, had been omitted.
The indictment must, therefore, be quashed. The prisoner
was, consequently, discharged.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY

William Stanley, William Taylor, and Sa►nuel Kirk were
inditted on a charge of having committed a highway robbery
at Dukenfield, on the person of John Hadfield. Staaley and
Taylor pleaded guilty. The evidence adduced, therefore,
mainly affected Kirk. The attack was attended with great
violence, and, consequently, included the capital charge.
The prosecutor had his pocket cut off, and his watch and
some money were taken. The prisoner was found guilty.
The JUDGE said, that the law required that judgment of
death should be recorded against them, though their lives
would be spared. He should make such representation to
the proper quarter as he deemed proper. He might say,
however, that Stanley might expect transportation for a long
series of years, that Taylor's term of transportation would
be shorter, and that Kirk would be imprisoned.

John Whitworth 24, and James Butterworth, 25, were
charged with having, at Blatchinworth and Calderbrook,
feloniously committed a rape on the person of Mary Harper.
There was another count, charging Butterworth with having
aided and assisted 'Whitworth in the commission of the
offence.

The female, on whose person the offence was alleged to
have been committed, was, it was stated, an idiot, and, there-
fore, could not be produced as a witness. Her father stated,
that she was 42 years of age ; that she had a stroke when she
was three years of age, and could bear but could not give an
answer. The prisoners sent the father (an old man) to a
distant public-house on two occasions, and, during his
'absence, the crime charged was supposed to have been com-
mitted. The woman generally sat in the " nook," being
lame, and unable to move much about. On his return, on
the last occasion, witness found his daughter and 'Whitworth
on the bed in an indelicate position. He (Whitworth) got
up and said, " Old fellow, you've catched me. I know I've
done wrong ; but if you'll say nothing about it, I'll treat you
to a pint or two of ale any time." He said, such a crime
could not be made up in that way. Butterworth was stand-
ing by. He said, he had had nothing to do with her. She
could not have got to the bed without assistance. She knew
nothing. If meat were placed before her, she would starve
before she would take it of her own accord. She had a child
once before, but it never could be found out how it happened.
The old man, who was much affected, concluded by saying,
he hoped his Lordship would have mercy on his fellow-
creatures, (the prisoners,) who had not before been guilty of
crime.

His LORDSHIP said, that there were some doubts whether
the offence amounted to the offence charged, inasmuch as the
female was devoid of mind. She could not give her consent
in words. There could be but little doubt be thought, but
that crime had been committed. If they considered the rape
made out against Whitworth, he should refer the case to the
consideration of the twelve judges. If they did not so find,
there could be no doubt whatever that an assault had been
committed. With respect to Butterworth, though it was
odious in him to stand by, it did not appear that be had in
any way aided and assisted the other, and he must, there-
fore, be acquitted.
The jury found the prisoner Whitworth guilty, and But-
terworth not guilty.
His LORDSHIP sentenced Whitworth to twelve months'
imprisonment and hard labour, the last week solitary con-
finement.

John Finnigan, 29, was charged with having, at Hindley,
committed a rape on Eleanor Molyneux.
The prisoner was manager of a mill at Hindley, belonging
to Mr. Walker. The prosecutrix, who is twenty years old,
was employed at the mill. She stated that the prisoner or-
dered her to an upper room to clean a window. He followed,
and carried her forcibly to another room, when he forcibly
committed the offence. She added, that she cried out, but
there was a great noise in the will at the time. She after-
wards told Mary Collier.

Alary Collier said, the prosecutrix came to her that night
full of trouble, and with tears in her eyes, and told her what
the manager had done. Witness asked her if she would
tell her father, and she said she would not, for he was ill,
and it would distress him. She did not see Mr. Walker that
night, as it was too late. _

-Cross-examined.—She told me the manager had taken
liberties with her three times before. I asked if she had
told her sister of the present assault, and she said she had
not. Persons in the room below would hear any cries made
in the room where it happened. The prisoner was appre-
hended in our house. We allowed him to remain there
some days.

The piosecutrix's sister said, that she (Eleanor) told her
on the evening of the 23d July what had been done to her
by the prisoner.
A constable apprehended the prisoner on the 9th August,
at Collier's house. His wife was there. He (witness) dis-
covered him in a closet under the stairs. On being told
what he was taken for, he fell on his knees and begged to be
let off for the sake of his wife and family. He afterwards
said he would give all he possessed if he would not take him.
On being told again what he was taken for, he said, " No,
I did not ravish her, for I had connexion with her before."
He said he had given her money, and she had gone against
him because he had not paid her then.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
His LORDSHIP said that the law still considered the
offence as capital, but the prisoner should have death record-
ed against him, and he would consider what punishment he
should suffer.

THE MURDER CASES.
The JUDGE, in reply to a question from Mr. Wilkins,
stated, that the first trial for murder, that of William Jenner,
for the murder of his wife and child, will be brought up on
Tuesday morning, and that the other murder cases will be
proceeded with without interruption.
The Court rose at half-past five o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY.
GARRETT V. THOMPSON AND OTHERS

In this action the plaintiff, who is an attorneyai Walling-
ton, in the county of Salop, claimed to recover from the de-
fendants, George Thompson, James Thompson, and Richard
Massey, a considerable sum of money, which he claimed
partly as due, to him upon certain bills of exchange and for
money lent to them.

Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Crcsswell and Mr. Crompton for the defendants.
From the statement of the case on the part of the plaintiff,
it appeared that the two first defendants had suffered judg-
ment to go by default, but Mr. Massey defended the action.
The action was to recover certain sums from him, first, as the
endorser of a bill ;secondly, as the acceptor of another ; and
thirdly, on a promissory note, of which he was the maker, by
one of his partners. Mr. Massey pleaded, that none of these
instruments were his, they having been signed by George
Thompson. The three defendants, since the beginning of
1838, carried on business in partnership as ironfounders, at
Fenton Park, Staffordshire, the Tbompsons residing on the
works and Mr. Massey remaining in Liverpool. The under-
taking was not a very prosperous one, and in the course of
1839, the whole of the floating capital of the partners having.
been expended, they felt it necessary to adopt some means of
raising money to carry on the concern. With this view ad-
vertisements for a partner with capital were inserted in the
Liverpool and Manchester papers, but without producing the
desired result. The plaintiff was at last prevailed upon to
supply funds, and he advanced a considerable sum, both on
his own account and on that of his clients. The question
was, whether Massey had given Thompson a general authority
to raise money in this matter, and to prove that he had, the
learned counsel read several letters which had passed between
them, in which the necessity for raising money, by some
means, was insisted upon, and some measures for that pur-
pose were suggested to Massey. The plaintiff having found
that the =cern was in a more critical state than be previously
had reason to apprehend, a second bill for £540 was given to
him by the elder Thompson, who also gave him some col-
lateral security, in this manner he had the private security of
Thompson as well as the general security of the firm. The
plaintiff enforced some of those securities, and put an execu-
tion into the partnership works ; and when the sheriff entered
for the purpose of selling the effects, Mr. Massey served him
with a notice, stating, that he was a partner in the concern,
and requiring him not to seize anything, as there were other
debts to which the partnership was liable. To this notice
_ was attached a schedule of the liabilities of the concern,
among which was the words, " to sundry bills of exchange,
accepted and endorsed, upwards of £1200." Subsequent
proceedings took place in the Court of Chancery, which Sll4-

pended the plaintiff's remedy by the execution.
The counsel for the plaintiff having stated his case.
Mr. CRESSW ELL said that, as a suit in Chancery was
pending, where all would be re-tried that would be heard
here to-day, in a more perfect manner than it could be in-
vestigated now, it would save a great deal of expense, if the
case was referred to some gentleman at the bar, who should
decide both upon the law and equity of the case.
Mr. KNOWLES assented.

It was then arranged that the case should be referred to a
gentleman at the equity bar, under the sanction of the learned
judge. Therefore, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
for the amount claimed. subject to the award.
Five other cases against the same defendants were also re-
ferred, subject to the same conditions.

BRANCKER Aell ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. SHIPTON

The plaintiffs in this case are the assignees of Messrs.
Warden and Wanostrocht, merchants, and the defendant is
Mr. Shipton, the well known carrier between Birmingham and
Liverpool. The action was brought to recover from the de-
fendant the value of 132 cases of musquets, which he held
for Mr. Scott, a manufacturer in Birmingham. Mr. Scott,
besides exporting musquets through the bankrupts, engaged
in some unfortunate speculations in the tea trade, and the
question was whether the bankrupts were his general or
special factors. The case, although it lasted several hours,
was of no public importance, nor did it involve any legal
point of consequence. Several witnesses were examined on
the mode in which business was generally transacted between
the bankrupts and Mr. Scott, and also as to these particular
transactions. A somewhat tedious inquiry was gone into as
to the losses which had been incurred by the various specu-
lations in tea, with the view of proving that the musquets in
the defendant's hands were liable to the plaintiffs for those
losses. Eventually, after several offers to refer had been de-
clined, it was agreed between the parties, that a verdict
should be entered for the plaintiffs for the value of the mus-
quets, £1360, but execution not to issue till the Ist of De-
cember, the defendant, in the mean time, to make an
application to the Court of Review to go into all the
transactions.