The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-17 00:00:00

fount • for the grass in the handi there must have been a
struggle before that blow was given. There was grass on
the side of the road.. The .fracture, was so extensive, that
the bones of the skull were driven into the brain.
The cap and flannel were produced. Allcock, being re-
called, said the blue paper was torn when he received it.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. WILK iNs addressed the jury for the defence in an
energetic speech of some length. lie pointed out to the
Jury what he conceived to be the culpable negligence of the
prosecutor, in not bringing forward the bonnet, patteus, and
shirr and stockings. He remarked on the vat ious places in
which the basket, pattens, and body were found, iu opposite
directions; and infetred that it would have been a work of
;time so to .place the things, or that there must have been a
number of hands employed in the murder. As a further
proof of this, he. remarked on the tratnpled state of the grass
about the pond. lie urged upon the attention of the jury,
the character of the witness Benion, and said he should call
it witness of repute to contradict her statement. Everything,
he-said, seemed to corroborate this opinion, there having
been seen four strange men there during the whole morning.
The learned- gentleman concluded his address with an elo-
quent appeal to the feelings of the jury. He then proceeded
to call his witnesses.
-lames Taylor and a man named Brown were called. The
witness Morgan was called. lie could not say whether he
l'Ad ever seen them before or not. He could not swear that
e did see. other persons in the lane. He went to see the
Place where the body was found. Witness afterwards went
ever to the inquest. Hodge was taken into custody that day.
Ile fell into company with Morg,an, and he asked him if he
attY young man or any person loitering about, except
the four tnenand he said "No," he met none but the four
Poor fellems n the lane, and they were looking for work, like
P
i
himself.
Mr Robert Browusun stated that he was .a traveller, and
resided at Huluie. He and the last witness fell into company
wimp
hadNlorgan, as stated by the last witness. Morgan said he
j, not seen any but the four men.
lut Baggtinv stated that he was Mr. Shakspeare Phillip's
He jel • t C' Iton on the 19/11 July. He saw
shim, S a al r
r uenren about twenty-lino minutes past twelve o'clock.
had a child and a basket and she said she was going to
Manchester; hut she had. to call upon her husband at Cook-
totes farm, which %las a mile off.
Mrs, s
hepherd stated that she kept a beer shop near the
"'Per).- At live o'clock ou the Tuesday night, stated as that
of
,the murder, the prisoner at the bar was not at her house.
Mr. ST.suale replied .at some lengths, remarking on the
points raised by Mr. Wilkins.
The Learned JeDGE recalled Mr. J. Chorlton. . Ile stated,
in i
reply to his lordsn
day to p, I 1-t no f our men came to him that
flak for mowing.
His I °Rust' te in his address to the jurk,sait! the question
for. their consideration is as whether the prisoner was the man
`rho had caused the death of Mai y Moore. Whoever had cons-
!flitted it, there was m; doubt that if she had met her death
by vtideuee, the crime was murder. He cautioned the jury
particularly against giving way to that
propensity of the
Y
human mind which has a tendelic
to maketrash feel pleasure
when they can by ingenuity shake vire uinst atiec. s lit
and har-
monize with each other. Thus, if they could on;v see that
the money which the prisoner had holden was Mrs. Moore's
money, every circumstance weuld harmonize. But they must
not draw 'woo .their imagination for the supply of this de-
ficiency, but upon the evidence. Upon the circumstance of
the piece of blue paper seen in the prisoner's mouth, his lord-
ship said he rested no weightat all. It was proved, he said,
that the parcel in the basket was folded in blur paper, which
was of a texture common enough. The hypothesis was that
the pat eel had been unfolded, a piece of paper torn off, and
the parcel molded up again. He put it to the jury if that IA
ss
Probable. The paper was presented to them in a tote state;
but if the piece of paper -produced had fitted any of those
Pieces, it would have beets a strung circninstauce. But such
Was not the case.
The jury consulted together for a few minutes, and returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
The case occupied the court till six o'clock, when the court
adjourned.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice rrtiliams.)
His lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
mr WATSoN AND OTHERS V. MORT.
• Wlghtumn and Mr. Alexander apearel for the plain-
dautti.t'ud Mr. Cresswell aud Mr. Hendeprson fur the defen-

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are brass
and iron-founders at St. Helen's, to recover from the defen-
dant, who carries on a branch of the Herculaneum Pottery
at Ecclestim, between 1:500 and 1:600, the value of a steam-
engine and machinery. It appeared that the plaintiffl sold
to the defendant a secondhand engine, which had formerly
been used at a colliery, for £220, the engine being of 8 horse
Power. The engine was purchased by the defendant for the
purpose of grinding flints, arid turned out to be inefficient.
But it was contended by the plaintiffs that the reason of its
inefficiency was hecause it was overworked, and was put to.
do what would require the power of a 16-horse engine. They
contended that the engine was an exceedingly good one, and
was in reality a 6-horse power engine, though capable of
working 10-horse power. The defendant's counsel contend-
ed that the engine was a bad one, and not capable of per-
forming the work which an engine of its power ought to do;
that it went very badly, and did not perform the work for
which it was bought, and which, if a good one, which it was
represented to be, it ought to have done. Vor this reason
the defendant refused to pay fur it.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages, £560
ISs. Ild.

DOE V. CORRY AND ANOTHER.
'Phis was an action of ejectment, brou'lit by the plaintiffs,
Mrs. Mary Alice Wilson, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Blakeson,
to recover possession of two small houses at Manchester.
The premises had been mortgaged, and there had been some
legal difficulty t the mortgagee in getting possession of them.
and during the interval which this occupied the defendants
had paid no rent, and now refused either to pay rent or leave
the premises, saying they -had occupied them so long without
paying anybody any rent, that they had as good a right to
them as any person. No substantial defence was offered.
The hill, found a verdict foi the plaintiff; his LonustilP
remarking, that the jury adjudged the defendants to be but
" squatters," they having paid no rent.

• COLTON V. LOGAN AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by Mr. William Butterfield
Colton, wine-merchant, of Liverpool, to recover front Mr.
lanes Logan and Mr. Francis Ileslop the amount of nearly
too, advanced by him for wines. It appeared that Logan
and lleblop formerly carried on business together, and in
the years 183-1 and 1835 sold to the plaintiff a quantity of
wine, under certain conditions, fur about engaging to
receive two acceptances at six months in payment, and to
protect the plaintiff from any cash payment; that is, if the
plaintiff had not sold sufficient of the wine to meet the bills,
they (the defendants)• would make up the difference. The
plaintiff did not sell sufficient of the wine to meet the bills;
but meantime the defendants had dissolved partnership, and
one partner was in difficulties, anti the other had no cash
belonging the old concern to ad,ance to tope! the acceptances
.coming due, obliging the plaintiff at great inconvenience to
himself to provide near £4OO out of his business capital to
meet them. The wines
yet remained unsold, and the action
was brouttlit to recover from the defendants the amount of a
renewed bill for £3ll 19e. 81., a part of the original payment
on account of the wine.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £3ll
19s. Bd.
The court adjourned al six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—TIII:IISDAY.
His Lordship took•his seat a few minutes before 9 o'clock.
COMIC. F. OF MURDER.
James Highants, aged 30, was charged with having mur-
dered Thomas Halligan, iu this town, in the month of July
last.

Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Doyle conducted the prosecetion,
add Mr. Murphy the defence. . •
Mr. AnsisrimoNG minutely detailed the circumstances of
the case to the jury.
John Colburue stated that on the 13th of July he came
over from Egremout, where he resided, and after attending
to some business he went to a tavern at the corner of Nailor-
Street.. After they had drunk sonic ale they were turned out
tef the house at twelve o'clock. '[lie deceased, Thomas Eat-
lion, was of the party. Witness turned aside fur some pur-
pose, and while he was thus turned the prisoner advanced
across- Vauxhall-road, and going up to the deceased, said
" Are you the same man you were?" The deceased replied,
li 1 ,
~
1 dmi- Presently utter, witness heard the deceased cry
(,),h Oh, Lord God, lam stabbed !" Witness ran after
get prisoner, and attempted to seize him. The prisoner
'reed himself and told him that he would serve him the same
:he had serverit he other. Witness tripped him and threw
4 '9, dowel. A scuffle enused, and he felt a teucii on his ann.
A female was at hand, called out "Oh, James Highams,
eet: have killed the man." The prisoner ran away and es-
lieed up a court in Nailor-street. Witness afterwards dis-
csne r.ed that he was stabbed iu the artn. lie secured the irl,
,rt_kent. her by the am for some time. At length he went
.Bettr, the deceased, who had been taken to the Infirmary.
and I,g, fei tie. witti loss of blood he was taken into the Infirmary,
p_nit his wound dressed.
where Maude, who was also of the party at the tavern
In"tiv•th" deceased was corroborated part of the above testi-
,tate4 _ yhe evidence differed, however, very much,. as he
roae hotiat he saw the deceased in the middle of N auxhall-
thee,. t`." of a man in a white jacket. Witness went towards
n", ttLiPutththey had separated before he got to them, and the
't\.tlirilues,„,e_ white jacket rats away, pursued by Colburne.
, e 10.0,,e70 ran away after him and kicked him as he lay on
.luss rtin„,'• Ile then returned to the deceased, who was
"ad bee„ e:
Witness did noteknow before that the deceased
uis
LoitnaLbed.
hen' Ther•:lllP.—" Now, I cannot see why you kicked that
~,itgroutid, wastas one man dealing with him, and he was on
Thceirecenseincewsa?, very barbarous to kick a man under
eeaseittiess pro,
Vi,,, .41. alld f„
no e'llC(1 to say that he returned to the de-
e_ ,
,eibeed Biro,u 1 him- bleeding profusely. He asked.htm
uu.u,ultuess
caul hut he was unable to articulate intelligibly
twit. • noeths.
. Mary Ann se not hear what he said. ,
egliteen 1 . •••"ehY stated thet she had known the prisoner
toil, 3 arid kneesn.
She was at the eoruer o al 0 i his
fN• •I r-street on the
hegt; In questio
She saw the prisoner at the bare „oert. .
or iii:P iris hut, • His hat was a and trom liiine ti. h
One
he tried
(if iron eato,
~ our, “Uhaps, that's riot,fair. One
' L'e deceased f n
„„ tee wen the If you don't go away I'll /ow you." One
knocked hint into the middle of the street.
tea k' and
~aid iil,,lol,yeil him, and elle? a little while stepped
1P Prisoner im't I ou've a knife." The deceased ran
God
,la stabb,,,,, 1 the bar to her. He said, "Oh Lord Ood,
:peeled to r_ I. u stabbed—I'm dead I'm dead." Witness
Homy wine girl who
r, Grant s' , it's Jimmy Hiehams who stabbed the man.
ue(osa.ry, st'a,rteoe,ef. the visiting.surgeons of the North. Dis-
islet,' , , , that the deceased was brought into the
ee, artery c"", on stri " external
t had 1 eping him, he found that the
lie (nee Was r )fteu divided. Any attempt to have saved
M NI uttp'"PelesB.
heard, lie would laid, after the evidence which they had
said there sse
The Jet G. not incumber the court by any observations.
evidetic e
Th. en attacked
hail b"
e of Mary Ann S as no doubt in this case,
.as the
le %,,, the by three men, before die stab was given.
re,thsi
~, refore, sek,,meient
Sweeney showed that the prisoner
4,l,,hter
The - •
le,ieiiiiite of utenslauehter Provocation to reduce it to
ee,,, , jury found the pris
oner not guilty of murder, but
yes" iniprisonmen' and. [ 1 he prisoner was sentenced to two
tee 0 ,labour in Lancaster Castle.]
it
usireii-i a ii-„lrdNalni:o',',':',
de ei,;(3 eoNVICTIO;e.oIt bl ANS LAIGHTEII.
mdered Michael ,
the r. Brandt. appeeuas indicted for having wilfully
dWarren, at :Manchester.
re
c delence for the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins for
',NOT in stating
Mr. B„ '
doper stood charge the case to the jury said, the pri-
ce with murder, but he believed the eve.
,„cc woirld scarcel !:.et he could Y support that charge, and he was happy
..,I 112,!y
nt,
eonsi,ectrelieve their minds from that heavy responsi-
as
.11e. believed lit t'voithtpte case under the more serious light,
urn out to be a case of manslaughter.
(..,listeadt:ne,ali
jacelli,ae thatoz the night of the 23d June, the 'de-
rell, Wils in Man-street, Shudehill,
Manchester, t% itli the
tiller, lie
teas with
dprfioner, a ho was, it appeared, a noted
deceased, an old mail., st,rt,,,•diidipassing time place, whine the
with him, and was iutexicated" deceased
had a companion
zsloenv,e,rd passed, he
pushed against the deceased. The latiteeri
twkd, prisoner was heard to say to his companion, '"
now him,nailud
what 4 blow I'll give him—he is by himself now." When
h:,...aeciearted came tip to him, the prisoner struck him two
._77,l'Y ehtws on the head, whereby he was thrown violently
to toe grotto& Ile was taken up insensible, and carried t
a tavern kept .by a Mrs. 'Farrell. He remained insensible
till be died, ,next
place, atici ii 'morning. A post moment examination took
on the b Ins found that there was great effusion of blood
A .. ' raia• 'rime prisoner was taken into custody by
rtnitage, of the Manchester police. He said to him he
feared the case would go bad with him, because of his bad
character.
Wriaet B ', ~ 7 I, oRGERY .
"'"tntioi a respectable looking

8
WO.