The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-04-05 00:00:00

BRUTAL FIGHTING.-MANSLAUGHTER.

William Renshaw, (28) Joseph Renshaw, (20) and Thomas
Charlton, (3-I) were indicted for the manslaughter of James
Miller, at Heaton Norris, near Manchester. The indictment
charged the two !atter prisoners with aiding, abetting, and en-
couraging William Renshaw, in killing and slaving the de-
ceased.
Mr. ARMSTRONG appeared for the prosecution, and Dr.
BROWN defended the prisoners.
It appeared from the evidence that the prisoners, the de-
ceased, and a number of persons were drinking.together in the
li's Head public.house, at Heaton Norris, last new year's
day ; and in consequence of some dispute having; arisen between
the prisoner, Wm. Renshaw, and the deceased'. they both strip-
ped to fight. While Miller was down, the prisoner, Renshaw,
paused him in various parts of his body, and deceaSed, on get-
_tiny up, attemptid to choke the prisoner by seizing him by the
throat. The prisoner again threw deceased down, and upon his
being taken up and exposed to the air at the door, it was found
he was dead. Witnesses were called who proved that the two
other prisoners, Renshaw and Charlton, repeatedly encouraged
the other prisoner and the deceased to continue • the tight. -It
appeared the three _prisoners hail borne a good character up to
the tine of the unfortunate occurrence.

llis lordship thought it unnecessary to sum up the evidence.
It was quite clear the deceased had come to his death • by the
blows or kicks inflicted upon him by the prisoner, Win. Ren-
shaw. It was likewise evidvit that The other two prisoners
were present aiding and encouraging the fight.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of
Guilty against all the prisoners, but recommended Win. Ren-
shaw eif tile& in eonsequen, of the provocation hellad. rem
ceived from the deceased. The jury thought the other two pri-
soners were much more to blame than Win. Renshaw.
The JUDGE concurred in the verdict of the jury •' —that was
his opinion. In passing sentence, his lordship oliserved that
the brutal practice of up an down fighting, which, he regretted
-to say, w.ts of frequent occurrence in this county, had induced.
individuals in his situation, on previous occasions, to visit the
-offendeis with a more severe punishment than he should that
peared t, have been considerable p
day pass pOU the prisoners. Other persons similarly offending
irritation, when challenged, a
spirriil;mi;,,,i,..„4 tuii
ni,ropti,t:lehn:;sf,
19,44 urge him.to tight ;
hail fie,in tiansported. However, in tho,,instaruce, them alt-
scarcely resist the iinpillse which
anti though a chance bIOW in Standing 1.4 i .fairly Might cause
death., yeqpitp*.triish,utipf,fir,slich,a„..vitie might he very light.
But to thkli4isgNicefolmyrorcoollsl,3here could ne no ex_
as reg,trrie.d Apt, 11,01dm.71s*telfvflei
cuse. The jtiap,!),,,,„,pzt. circumstances
reprehended the con-
duct of the 'other two prisoners, v ad (aged him to (he coin=
mission of the crime. His lordship then passed, the folldwing
'sentence:—William Renshaw to be imprisoned six month and
kept to hard labour; .191eph Renshaw and Thomas Charlton
twelve months each and kept to hard, labour in Kirkdale House
of Correction.

NISI PRIUS.-7-FaIDAy.
. ,
Mr. Baron Parke took his seat this morning at twelve o'clock,
after hearing divine service at St. George's Church.

MARSDEN V. STAFFORD.

The plaintiffs in this case reside at Manchester, and the ac.
lion was brought to recover the amount of a bill of exchange.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £47. 19s. 3d. •
EDWARDS V. BROMLEY.
_

Verdict by consent, £49. 16s. Ed

SHEPPERD V. POLICKLEY AND OTHERS.

Mr. Sergeant A►TCUERLEY and Mr. BRANDT appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Catisswe.u..for the defendant.
This was an action brought to recover the amount of £23 odd
for-repairing a chapel from the defendants who were trustees.
Referred by consent to arbitration.
SIDEBOTTOM AND ANOTHER V. BOWDEN.
. .

Mr. BRAN oz appeared for the plaintiff.
This was an action to recoverX22. 10s., the value of a quan
tits of bricks furnished by lite plaintiffs.
Verdict for the plaintiffs, £22. I.os.

WYATT V., Amos.
Mr. BitarinT appeared, for the plaintiff, and stated the case.
This was an action to recover the value of a bill of exchange for
£22. 155., which the defendautAlijected Ite,,,lsad not accepted.
The cause was
.undefended.-IKernict for the plaintiff, £22. 15s.

.CROSS y, IdA 1,1)0X.

Mr. SEAGER appe'ared-liirThe plaintiff; This was an action
brought to recover amounVikfkeonipenaition for an assault. The
plaintiff is cashier in the:MAW 'Of .Dayand Atkins. of Manches-
ter, and the defendant is bookeeper in the house of Mr. Wolforn,
of Manchester, The defendant had told one of the men under
the plaintiff's master, that he had given plaintiff ss. for a new
year's gift for them. •Theniewapplied to plaintiff for it, and he
wrote to defendant about it, which note he gave to. defendant,
who just then entered the house, and defendant still persisted,
and said, You had better tutn up the 55." Cross (plaintiff)
replied he could do with any one but a liar. The defendant
then turned round and kicked the plaintiff. For this assault the.
plaintiff sought compensation. •
The jury returned a verdict of 205..
FARRAR V. BESWICK.-..ILLEGAL DISTRAINT.
Mr. WIGHTMAN and Mr.Cßesswßi.t, appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. BRANDT defended the case.
This was an 'action brought by the' plaintiff to recover the
value of four horses, which had been Illegally seized. • The
plaintiff (James Farrar) had carried on the business of a car-
rier at Manchester, and had a waggon and horses which plied
part of the way to Halifax. The plaintiff had a brother at Hali-
fax who was in the same business, and who kept a waggon and
horses to ply part of the way to Manchester. The horses of
either party plied half way, and the other half was completed
by the horses of that party nearest each end. The name of
James was on the waggon of Mr. James Farrar, and Joseph
was on the waggon of Mr. Joseph Farrar, and they were not
comineu property. A debt had been contracted by a Mr.
Joshua Fat tar, of Manchester, who carted the goods of James
Farrar, amounting to £9, which he not-paying was sued for, and
the debt and costs amounted to £2O. For this sum the waggon,
and afterwards the four horses of James Farrar, of Manchester,
had been taken in execution, and the plaintiff had in conse-
quence Jost his business.
John Howard deposed to having been in the service of Mr.
James Farrar, and that the four horses, one of which was worth
£l3, another £B, and another about £2O, were bought by Mr.
James Farrar and were his property. He horsed the waggons
half way to Manchester. The hay and corn was bought and
paid for by the plaintiff for his own horses. He managed, at
that time, the whole of Mr. James Farrar's business.
Thomas- Hadfield deposed to having been in Mr. James Far-
rar's service at the time, and to his waggon and horses having
been seized, by which he lost his place.
Joseph Farrar deposed to having a brother named Joshua, in
Manchester, who carted his brother's goods. He was not a part-
ner with his brother; he had a cart of his own. He sold his
brother a horse.in 1830 for £22. He recollected the time of
the horses being seized; his brother had used them up to the
time. Was present when the horses were sold in January,
1831. The horses were seasoned horses, and were worth about
£5O or £bo. Beswick seized the property.
Cross-examibed by Mr. A I.EXAN DEll.—He did not know the
amount they sold for. He bought one of the horses, the one he
had sold' his brother, for £4 18s. at the sale. The horses sold for
very little. _ _ _

Mr. ALEXANDER, in reply, contended that it was an ex-
tremely hard case for the real defendant, Mr. Cotterill. for Mr.
Beswick, the bailiff, would, of course, be exonerated by him.
That Mr. Cotterill had sold hay to James, whip h Joshua said
Was all right, and received. Joshua again applied for souse bay,
and Mr. Cotterill asked for payment for the last, when be said
that James was out collecting, and he should hate the money
ai soon as they got it. Not being able to obtain his money for
that and a subsequent limit of hay, Mr. Cotterill had brought
his action in the county court against Joshua. James then
Stands ult ns witness, and says Joshua has noihing to, do with
that the hay is his. The jury don't belieVe him, and Mr.
tuterill won his caust:t'and obtainiA au.execution fur the debt