The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-03 00:00:00

HOSPITAL.

.Tohn Gorton, 76, and James Gorton, 28, were charged
with having, at Great Bolton, personated and falsely assumed
the name of Richard Royal, deceased, and previously entitled
to a pension for service done in the army, for the purpose of
fraudulently receiving that pension, and with having forged
a certificate concerning the payment of the said pension, with
intent to defraud the Lords and other Commissioners of tie
Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea, in the county of Mid-
dlesex.

Serjeant Atelierly, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Fitzgerald
conducted the prosecution.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the County Palatine ob-
served that it was a splendid thing that, in this country, there
were no less than eighty thousand men who received pensions
for services rendered in the army alone, and the amount paid
to them was not less than £1,300,000.
The elder prisoner, John Gorton, has. been in the army,
and has received a pension. He is a very fine looking old
man, with white locks, and a fine bushy pair of white whis-
kers, which he wore under:his chin. Though seventy-six
years old, he stood much more erect than his nephew, a lout-
ish looking petion, whose innocence of any participation in
the offence was frequently declared by the old man.
It appeared, in the course of the evidence, that very exten-
sive frauds had been practised on the commissioners by indi-
viduals personating dead pensioners who had resided in the
country, and that the elder Gorton, in company with John
Reyes, had been in the habit of drawing the pension of a man
named Hodgins, deceased, during a number of years.
The jury found both prisoners Guilty. •

Job; Moes, a fine old man, aged- 76, was placed at the
bar. He was charged with having personated the name of
Richard Royal, on the first of January, 1839, with intent to
defraud the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the prisoner had re-
ceived the pension of a man named Hodgins during eight
years. The learned counsel recommended James Gorton to
mercy, as he had reason to believe that he had been a tool in
the hands of his uncle.

His LORDSHIP said, the legislature had considered this
offence of such enormity, that they had fettered the hands
of the judge, and he had no discretion but to pass sentence
of transportation. It was painful to send two such old men,
even for the shortest term in his power, out of the country,
where it was probable they would spend the remnant of their
days ' • but it was necessary to mark the crime by a severe
punishment. His lordship said it was probable, from the
evidence, that the prisoners had been led into the commis-
sion of this crime by love of drink, which he was of opinion
was the cause of two-thirds of the crime committed inq this
country. The two old men, John Gorton and Heyes, were
sentenced to transportation for life ; James Gordon to trans-
portation for fifteen years.

CHARGE OF WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MURDER.

William Gill, a well-dresSed, respectable-looking man,
aged 42, was indicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously
beaten, cut, and wounded his wife, Mary Ann Gill, with
intent to murder her.

Mr. Sergeant Atcherley and Mr. Cobbett prosecuted-, and
Mr. Wilkins defended.

The prisoner, it appeared, had some years ago married a
respectable young woman at Manchester, where he was the
son of a dissenting minister. Soon after the marriage some
disagreement arose, and a separation ensued. The prisoner,
it was supposed, went abroad. After a time he returned,
when he pressed his wife, who was respectably supporting
her three children at Openshaw, to live with him. She re-
ceived him with kindness, but refused again to live with him.
The circumstances which led to the act of which the prisoner
was accused, will be gathered from the evidence.

Mary Ann Gill, a respectable and interesting-looking fe-
male, stated that she had been married to the prisoner four=
teen years. Soon after they were married they had some
disagreement, in consequence of misfortune and his inatten-
tion to his children. They had not much disagreement ;
but at length, about four years ago, she considered that it
would be best for them to separate ; she could provide
for her children ; she continued to do so, entirely un-
aided by him. She did not see him for two years till the
middle of last January, when he called at the house which
she occupies. He said he had come to stop with her, and
she told him that he had better not. He insisted upon
I staying, and she, after a short time, went out to her sister's
house, where she remained till the following evening Stuiday)
when having been informed that he had left the house, she
returned. He visited her again on Monday evening.. Ile
sat down and remained. A neighbour, named Shepherd,
came in to purchase some articlel, and she asked him to
remain. The prisoner persisted in staying, and he stayed
till Wednesday. She requested Shepherd, and another
neighbour, named Jones, to stay with her, as she did not
like to remain alone with the prisoner. He left her on
Wednesday morning and returned again orr Wednesday
night. She sent for a constable to put him out, according
to the advice of the attorney whom she had consulted. The
constable asked him very quietly to go out, but he insisted
upon being taken to the New Bailey. She appeared against
him. He leaned over the bar and asked her not to press the
charge. He was discharged on promising that he would not
annoy her again, and that he would quit the town. He
called again on the following Monday ; he did not remain
long ; he called again the following afternoon, and again left
the house ; he did the same on Wednesday, and on Thursday
he called again and pressed her very much to let him live
with her: She said she could not do that, but she would do
what she could towards his support. He called again on
Friday the 31st January. He sat down, and they were talk-
ing on the same subject of his living with her. She repeated
that she could not let him live with her. She prepared tea,
and invited him to partake. He renewed the subject during
tea, saying, " How is this to be, Mary Ann, do you intend
to live with me?" She faid, " No, I never intend to live
with you again." He said, " What, never !" She said,
" No, never while I live." At the moment she said this she
was passing him. He arose, took her by the shoulders, and
pushed her into a small passage. ' He threw her down, and
kneeled upon her breast; he took a clasp-knive from his
pocket ; it was a knife such as gardeners use ; he bent her
head upon her breast, and felt round her ears for the jugular
vein. When he did so, she exclaimed, "Oh spare my life,
for the sake of my children." He said, " No, you shall die
now." He then cut her across the throat. She did not
recollect anything till she found herself in the yard scream-
ing. Witness exhibited the mark on her throat to the jury.
She was able to appear before the magistrates on the follow-
ing Monday, the wound having been previously dressed by
a surgeon.

On cross-examination by Mr. WILKINS, Mrs. Gill said,
on occasion of their various interviews, he always expressed
the strongest affection for ber and her children. Mr. 'Wil-
kins questioned the witness concerning a person named
Moscha, who formerly resided with Mr. Fechini, the husband
of her sister. The object of this part of the cross-examina-
tion appeared to be to establish that an improper intimacy
had existed between Moscha and witness. It merely ap-
peared that witness had frequently taken her home from the
houses of her sisters, Mrs. Fechini and Mrs. Leresche, and
that he had made her and her children some trifling presents.
Moscha went abroad six years ago, and she had only seen
him once since, about four years ago. Her husband was in
Lancaster Castle about 17 months, and at that time Moscha
made her children a present of some frocks. Mr. Wilkins
also pressed her to state whether some improper intimacy had
not subsisted between her and Thomas Sheppard. She de-
nied this in the most decided terms, saying she never had
such a thought. She admitted that she said to her husband
—but not on the night when he cut her—" Suppose, from
your long absence, that I had transferred my affections to
some one else." She had not transferred her affections to
another.

Other witnesses having been examined
Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury at some length on behalf
of the prisoner, and called a witness, Lieut. Jones, of the
Royal Navy, who gave him a good character. It did not ap-
pear, however, that Lieut. Jones had seen much of the pri-
soner for some years.
The jury retired at a quarter past four o'clock, and re-
turned in three quarters of an hour, and found the prisoner
guilty of wounding with intent to murder, recommending
him strongly to mercy.
The prisoner was asked what he had to say why judgment
of death should not be recorded against him ?

The prisoner entered into a long statement of the misery
and hardship which he said he had suffered during his ab-
sence from his oife, and gave a detail of the events which he
issisoonmoe
severe reflections on his wife, we forbear to publish it.f
thealle alleged
for
rd
which
p ehnee dw iams
tried,n i e dia
butte ly
ah se before
atclhder ecso commission
threwm
The JUDGE said, the merciful recommendation of the jury
had certainly saved the prisoner's life, for if they had found
the verdict which they had returned, and not coupled it with
that recommendation, he should have felt it his duty to have
passed that awful sentence which he never did pass, without
the most rooted intention of carrying it into effect; he never
trifled with that awful sentence. The life of the prisoner
would be spared, upon what terms it was not for him to say.
Sentence of death was recorded against the prisoner.
Thos. Ford, alias Roger Barry, aged 25, John Ford, aged
24, who had two or three other names, and James Yates, 29,
were charged with having, at Todmorden and Walsden, bur-
-1 glariously broken into the shop of George Davies and stolen
thirty silver watches, one gold watch, three pairs of silver
cases and other articles, the property of the said George
Davis. Thomas Ford pleaded guilty.
tddndwtttfohoowir fifteenhsh
tai
The Jury found both prisioners Guilty.
ifiinemt
rxet eeee
Thos. Ford said he deserved punishment. He was a de-
serterTtHh hTeaeth dpneeri foigcrsh:of
tamnaretatrti
olsshi
tdeawtcBheaBerts tehechesso
oßamonretotegh:
retill
crimeall was
on yalyriesaastprahaastett,
trtiTiit.cdohi
apa loma,
tibionoeroodtraeli y
inko transportation.ne on
that
if the felonies be then concluded. The trials of the officers
of the 86th will not come on before Thursday next. The
court adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock.

E
E fpnNt V. AANRIYIeS'sII
srItsI.CNKe.I-
NISI PRIUS COURT.
NTEhtissT
wasß O P
aAnN
ape
tai :no
bT
rHoEuag
h,
tA
bS Sy I
treEplas
strop and Walmsley, corn dealers, at Stockport, as the
assignees of Timothy Boddington, a baker, formerly carry-
ing on business at Salford, to recover the sum of .tB6 for
-
money had for the use of the assignees.
Mr. WIGHTMAN, in stating the case, said this action was
brought to recover the money above stated, for the purpose
of effecting an equal distribution of the effects of Bodding-
ton, who was a bankrupt. The circumstances of the case
were, that Boddington having a short time before his bank-
ruptcy been called upon by the traveller of Messrs. Fletcher
and Moss, and being deeply indebted to them, was in-
duced, in the hopes of getting more goods from them, to give
them a warrant of attorney. At this time Boddington was
indebted to several other persons, and among others to the

plaintiffs in this case, but he appeared only to have thought
of paying Messrs. Fletcher and Moss, and he was to pay
them £2O a month. Of course he did not do this long ; he
failed, and then this warrart of attorney was put in force.
The warrant of attorney was put in force on the 13th July,
last year, a seizure was made on the 15th, and his effects
were sold. The other creditors of Boddington hearing of his
bankruptcy, which took place on the 12th, in order that
Messrs. Fletcher and Moss might not get the lion's share of
the effects determined to take out a fiat to obtain that equal
distribution of the bankrupt's effects contemplated by the
bankrupt laws. A fiat was taken out, and assignees had
been duly appointed. He believed that, so far as the facts
of the case were concerned, there would be little difference
between the plaintiffs and defendant, but he believed that
the substantial point would be with reference to a late act of
Parliament affecting the case. This act was the 2d and 3d
Viet. c. 29. Previous to the passing of this act, there could
not be a doubt but the plai► tiff. would be in a condition to
recover ; and the question was, whether the act would apply
to this case. The act of bankruptcy was committed on the
15th July, the fiat was taken out on the 18th, and the act
passed on the 19th: the question would be, therefore, whe-
ther the act had a retrospective action.
Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, intimated that he
should dispute the fact that Boddington had ever committed
an act of bankruptcy, and witnesses having been called, the
case was submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiff
on this plea. On the other point, which was a question of
law, a verdict was also given for the plaintiffs, under the
direction of his Lordship, subject to future decision on the
point, which was reserved.