The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-09 00:00:00

SHEFFIELD RAILWAY V. ARMSTRONG

This action was brought by the Sheffield, Ashton-under-
Lyne, and Manchester Railway Company, to recover from
Mr. Robert Armstrong, the defendant, the amount of vari-
ous calls made on the twenty shares he held in the company,
amounting to £756 principal, and £36 interest—total £786.
The defendant pleaded that he was never indebted.
Mr. CRESSIV ELL, for the plaintiff. said this was one of
the very numerous actions which the company had been
compelled to bring, for the purpose of enforcing payment of
their calls. The transfer to him was on the 4th of Decem-
ber, 1837, and the register was dated 27th June, 1838, and
these calls were made since that time. The 110th section of
the company's act provided, that the company should enter
in a book the names of the proprietors of the shares, which
book should be sealed with the company's seal, and should
afterwards be evidence of the parties being shareholders.
The directors had power to make such calls at such periods
as they thought fit, provided no call exceeded £lO per share,
and that there was an interval of three months between any
call. It was necessary under the act to show that the calls
had been duly advertised in a newspaper circulating through
the counties in which the railway was situated. The defen-
dant had paid the first call of £2 lOs per share, and this
claim was for the amount of the subsequent calls including
one on the Sth.

The register was produced, and the name of " Robert
Armstrong, 29th of August, 1838, 20 shares" was found
in it.

Mr. Rowland, of the Manchester Guardian office, proved
that the Manchester Guardian circulated in the four coun-
ties of Lancaster, York, Derby, and Chester.

• Mr. Stevenson, one of the clerks of the company, read
the advertisements for the several calls from different num-
bers of this paper. _ _ _

Mr. Crompton, for the defendant, submitted that this was
not enough ; that the company was bound to publish the
call in one or more newspapers published and circulated in
each of the four counties.

The jury found for the plaintiffs, damages £786, costs 40s

SHEFFIELD RAILWAY CO. V. VERNEY

This was a precisely similar case, except that the defen-
dant, Mr. George Verney, a shopkeeper and tradesman at
Greenwich, had not paid the first or any subsequent call
upon Lis twenty shares.

The formal proofs having been given, Mr. Jay proved that
he served the defendant with a writ, and that the defendant
said he was the person named therein, that he had written
to Mr. Parker, the company's law-clerk, in Sheffield, and
had made an offer to pay all he could ; but if called upon to
pay the whole it would ruin him.

- The jury found for the plaintiffs, damages £B4l 14s. prin-
cipal and interest.

•Mr. Baron ROLFE remarked that if parties took shares
they must sometimes expect to pay for them.

HIGGINS AND OTHERS V. SENIOR,

In this case, which was tried by a special jury of mer-
chants, Messrs. Vincent Higgins and William Henry Hig-
gins, trading in this town under the firm of Vincent Higgins
and Son, iron merchants, were the plaintiffs, and Mr. John
Senior, trading in this town, under the firm of John Senior
and Co. iron merchant, was the defendant. The declaration
set forth that the defendant agreed to sell the plaintiffs 1000
tons of varteg or other merchantable bar iron, at £6 per ton,
free on board at Newport, 200 tons to be delivered by the
20th August, 1840, 400 tons in all September, and the re-
maining 400 tons by the 14th October, Maesteg iron being
excluded from the contract; that both parties agreed to per-
form this contract and that the defendant was required to
see the iron, but he refused to do so. The defendant
pleaded that he had made no such arrangement, and also
that the plaintiffs had made no such arrangement with him.
Mr. DuNnAs stated the plaintiffs' case. They had em-
ployed a Mr. Mead, formerly an iron merchant, as their
agent, to buy this iron. About the 20th July lust, he made
a contract with the defendant's brother, William Senior.
who was in the defendant's place of business, for 1000 tons
of Varteg iron, but the contract was cancelled, and a new
one was made, which the learned counsel read to the effect
that on the date set forth, (21st July, 11340) they had eold,
through Mr. Mead, to Messrs. V. Higgins and Sons, 1000
tons of Varteg or other merchantable bar iron, common
sizes, flat, square, and round, at £6 per ton, free on board
at Newport, less 5 per cent. for cash payment, with the sti-
pulations as to delivery before mentioned, and certain others
as to freight, &c. and some exceptions as to shipment.
Though the plaintiffs had about the several times specified
in the contract, made repeated demands for the parcels of
iron, as per agreement, accompanying the demand with in-
timations that they should hold the defendants responsible
for the breach of contract, they had not received up to this
time any of the iron, which had risen in the market at the
period, and they had consequently brought the present
action. _ _

--For the defendant it was contended, and evidence was
given to show, that only one half the agreement had been
produced, and the other half Was put in to show that the
contract was not with the defendant as principal, but as agent
for the Varteg Iron Co. The counterpart! of the agreement
given by Mead to Wm. Senior was put in and read. It was
dated on the same day as the other, and commenced in the
following terms :—" Liverpool, 21st July, 1840. (Signed)
Samuel Mead for V. Higgins and Co., iron merchants.
Bought of the Varteg Iron Co. per John Senior and Co.,
1000 tons of good merchantable bar iron, &c." The re-
mainder of the paper was in precisely the same terms as that
given in evidence for the plaintiffs, except a postcript exclu-
ding Maesteg iron.

The jury retired, and after an absence of twenty-three
minutes, returnd, and delivered in a verdict for the plaintiffs

,dapageo, £1450, or £1 9s. 10d, per ton on 1000 tons
costs, 40s. His lordship certified that it was a fit case for
trial by a special jury.

ASSAULT

BRYCE V. FORSLIANN

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Charles
Bryce, a surgeon, residing in Liverpool, to recover compen-
sation in damages for an assault committed on him by the
defendant, Mr. Henry Forshaw, a respectable solicitor, also
residing in Liverpool.
Mr. WATSON opened the pleadings, and
Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case to the jury. He did not
know s hen he rose to address a jury with more pain than on
the present occasion, for the jury would have to inquire into
circumstances of such a nature that he was sure would be
very painful to every one who heard him, but those circum-
stances the plaintiff felt called upon to lay before them, in
order to vindicate a chdracter which had hitherto remained
unstained—in order to vindicate a spirit which had shown it-
self in the field when engaged ie the wars of his country. If
anything could stamp the conduct of the plaintiff with that
high bearing he had always exhibited, it would be what had
taken place in the present case. He (Mr. Alexander) under-
stood that on the other side a great number of witnesses had
been subpcened, and he was ata loss to understand for what
purpose, unless it was to lay before the jury the whole amount
of the disputes which had occurred between the parties. There
was nothing he should more rejoice at than having the whole
of the transaction inquired into. The plaintiff was a doctor
of medichie residing in Liverpool—a married man, with a fa-
milY of children—a member of every literary and scientific
society of respectability in Liverpool, and had ever conducted
himself as a gentleman. The defendant was a man highly
respectable—an attorney who, so far as he (Mr. Alexander)
knew, had always conducted himself with propriety. There-
fore, it was fair to presume that, with his knowledge of the
world and of those duties which one gentleman owed to ano-
ther, had he reflected for a moment on the conduct he had
exhibited under the influence of passion, he would have been
the first to regret what had taken place. Before the case had
been far gone into, the jury would hear an account of the
gross assault that had been committed, and for which he
came into court to ask compensation, not for the purpose of
filling his pocket, but to vindicate his character and to set
him right in the estimation of his friends and the community
in which he resided. The plaintiff,
.was chairman of a well-
known institution in that place, called the Liverpool Apothe-
caries' Company, and the practice had always been for the
committee of that board to meet monthly. Their object was a
good one, and he believed for the benefit of the community,
for it attended to the health of the lower classes, and, there-
fore, was of considerable advantage generally. In the month
of September last year, there was a meeting of the commit-
tee, and the plaintiff took his seat at the board as usual.
IVhilst there, a porter came to the door and said some one
wished to speak with Dr. Bryce. He accordingly went into
an adjoining room, and there found the defendant. The lat-
ter made some observations which he (Mr. Alexander) would
not take upon himself to repeat accurately, but would leave
the witnesses to do that; however, it was to the effect that
the plaintiff could not have forgot what occurred between
them above twelve months ago, and then added that he
had called for the purpose of horsewhipping him. He
took out the whip instantly and began to apply it to the
shoulders of the plaintiff—it was a word and a blow. The
porters, however, interfered and the parties were separated.
The defendant was subsequently taken into custody, and the
case was heard before Mr. Rushton the same day. On the
defendant being asked before the magistrates what he had to
say to the charge made against him, he at once said he did
commit the assault, and that he had gone to the place with
the:intention of horsewhipping Mr. Bryce. Mr. Rushton was
about to adjudicate on the matter, but the plaintiff said he
did not intend the matter to rest there, on which the magis-
trate bound over the defendant. Two gentlemen, he be-
lieved, offered themselves as sureties, and the defendant was
bound over. Now the defendant had pleaded that he did not
commit the assault, and then he pleaded that the plaintiff
assaulted him first. That was certainly most strange, when
he had admitted before the magistrate that he had gone to
the place expressly with a view of committing the assault.
His client had no wish to seek from the jury any pecuniary
emolument—all we wanted was to be set right with his
friends and in the sphere of life in which he moved, and had
the defendant apologised for his conduct, the present action
would never have been brought ; but, as he had not thought
proper to do so, he appealed to the jury to mark their sense
of the conduct of the defendant. It was not a case of com-
mon assault, although it was one in which compensation in
damages was sought as a recompense for the injury done.
The plaintiff was a gentleman likely to be pointed at, had he
not sought to set himself right, as one who had been horse-
whipped, but one who had not the manliness to seek repara-
tion for the insult—that he had not taken it up in a proper
way. Had he not done as he had, an unfriendly spirit would
have been always manifested towards him. He would have
been pointed out right and left as the gentleman who had
been horsewhipped. Besides, where was the assault corn-
rnittted ? Why, in the very place where the lower class went
for medicines and advice, and some of them might have been
present at the very time the trespass occurred, and they were
likely to point out the plaintiff as the gentleman who had
been horsewhipped. Besides, he was a gentleman in exten-
sive practice as a medical man, and there might be those
amongst his patients who might think he had not acted as he
ought to have done, and therefore it would injure him in his
profession. He could not help thinking that, if the circum-
stances which occurred previous to the day when the assault
was committed were gone into.
Mr. CRESSWELL.—I have no objection.
Mr. ALEXANDER continued.—His learned friend had given
him permission to go into the transactions which occurred
previous to the assault, and; therefore, he would take the
liberty of stating their history to the jury.
The JUDGE intimated that such facts would not be evi-
dence.

Mr. CRESSWELL.—If your lordship thinks it right that
those circumstances can be gone into, I have not the slight-
est objection.

The JUDGE.—You are going to inquire into circumstances
which occurred long before the assault complained of, and
we may thereby get into a long rigmarole story, no one
knows where it will end. Sitting here, then, and being so
much pressed for time, I cannot allow you to do so. You
may take it that both parties are anxious to go into the pre-
vious circumstances, but I prevent them.
Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed a few other observations
to the jury, and concluded with observing that he trusted
they, as gentlemen, would show to the public the estimation
in which they held the conduct of the defendant. The learned
gentleman again expressed his willingness to settle the matter
by an apology being made by the defendant through his learn-
ed friend who appeared on the other side.

Mr. CRESSWELL said his learned friend had twice stated
that he would accept an apology. Now, his client had ex-
pressly instructed him not to make any apology, because he
telt convinced that he had only acted as a gentleman ought
to act under the circumstances. However, as Mr. Alexander
was anxious that all the circumstances should be investiga-
ted, and as his lordship could not hear them, he (Mr. C.)
had no objection to the matter being referred to some gen-
tleman of honour, who would take the trouble, and that he
should hear all the circumstances, and decide what ought to
be clone.

Mr. ALEXANDER said his client wished a public investi-
gation. _

Mr. CnEsswELL.—Well, that can be either in public or
the proceedings can be published.
Mr. ALEXANDER.—Nonsense! Call the witnesses.
The following witnesses were then called :
Thomas Dean, an assistant at the Apothecaries'-hall, in
Liverpool, examined :—The institution is managed by a body
of directors, consisting of medical men and merchants of the
first respectability. Mr. B• gee has been connected with the
institution since I have been there—twelve months ago. He
was vice-chairman of the committee, and is now chairman.
On the morning of the 11th September the defendant came
to the Apothecaries'-hall, about one o'clock. Mr. Connery,
the shop-manager, was present. The managing committee
'was sitting. The defendant asked if Mr. Bryce was there.
Mr. Connery said he was. The defendant then said—" Tell
hint a gentleman wants to see him." Mr. Connery went
out and returned with Mr. Bryce. The defendant was then
standing in the body of the shop. He walked up and spoke
to the plaintiff. Heard him say—" In consequence of what
took place twelve months ago I have come here to publicly
horsewhip you," and he immediately struck him with a small
hand whip. A scuffle took place ; the whip was raised a se-
cond time, and Mr. Bryce guarded off the blow. The scuffle
was put an end to by one of the porters interfering. A police-
man was sent for, and he was taken before Mr. Rushton.
The case was heard the same day. Mr. Wright asked Mr.
Bryce if he would explain what took place twelve months
ago. Mr. Bryce said—" Most willingly." Mr. Rushton
asked the defendant what he had to say to the charge. He
did not deny the charge. In answer to Mr. Wright's ques-
tion, Mr. Rushton said—" If gentlemen take the law into
their own hands they could not complain of the officers doing
their duty.

Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—Did not hear all
that passed in the shop. Did not hear Mr. Forshaw say to
Mr. Bryce—" Now your recognizances are expired, I have
come to horsewhip you." These words were used before the
magistrates, and Mr. Bryce said—" I don't mean you to be
whitewashed here. I shall bring an action." The de-
fendant was then bound over.

William Henry Connery.Lln September last was superin-
tendent of Apothecaries'-hall. On Friday, the 18th of Sep-
tember, saw the plaintiff at the hall. Mr. Forshaw called at
the shop that day. On coming in, he asked if Mr. Bryce
was there ? I replied he was. He then said—" will you be
kind enough to say a gentleman wishes to see him." He
added—" you need not say who it is." I observed a horse-
whip in the defendant's hand—it was one of the smallest I
ever saw. I went and told Mr. Bryce, and he followed me
into the shop. The defendant said—" Mr. Bryce, you are
aware your recognizances have now expired, and, in conse-
quence of what took place twelve months ago, and in order to
clear my character, lam now come to horsewhip you." He
raised the whip and struck Mr. Bryce across the shoulders.
A scuffle immediately followed. One of the porters got be-
tween Mr. Forshaw's legs and upset him. A policeman was
sent for, and the defendant was given in charge. I attended
before Mr. Rushton. The case was stated on the part of the
plaintiff, and the defendant was bound over. Mr. Rushton
asked the defendant, previous to, passing judgment, what he
had to say. I did not hear any denial of the assault. De-
fendant was then bound over.

Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—Did not hear any-
thing said about a challenge.
Thomas Blackburn, surgeon.—ls acquainted with Mr.
Bryce, who is a practising surgeon in Liverpool. Has been
a director of the company for some years, and so has Mr.
Bryce. Knew the defendant. who was attorney to the Apo-
thecaries' Company. Did not know whether he has ceased
to be so now.
Joseph Brooks Yates said he knew the plaintiff well, and
had done so for a dozen years upwards. He was a surgeon
in extensive practice.
Mr. ALEXANDER.-1S he a man of eminent literary and
scientific character ?
Mr. CRESSWELI.—ReaIIy, my lord, I don't know that
there is a greater measure of damages to be given for laying a
whip across a literary man's shoulders. (Laughter.)
The JUDGE.—You may show the station in life of the
parties.

The witness then stated that the plaintiff was a man highly
respected, and a member of several literary societies.
Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant. His learned friend had told them that the plaintiff
was the offspring of respectable parents, who had lived in
the esteem of many in that town, and that the defendant had
practised in the town as a solicitor for some years, in such a
manner as to have acquired great respectabilty among the
profession to which he belonged. Now, he need not tell the
jury, that in a town like Liverpool, where some of the most
wealthy and respectable of the profession resided—that
amongst such a community no man could acquire a good
reputation unless he well deserved it. His learned friend
has dealt with the case very gravely ; he must change the
subject, and try to throw into it something more befitting its
character. This was the glorious land of liberty. He
thanked God providence had preserved us from that tyranny
which prevailed in other lands. Here every one had a per-
fect right to do what he liked with his own. Mr. Bryce's
honour was his own. He had done as he thought proper
with it, and as pleased him best, but be (Mr. Cresswell) did
not think it would satisfy his friends. (Laughter.) His
learned friend had introduced the case to the jury with all
that pompous and elegant diction he was accustomed to em-
ploy on such occasions. Ile could hardly rise from his seat
in consequence of the agony under which he laboured.
(Laughter.) He said he rose with great pain. He (Mr.
Cresswell) was disposed to think the pain bodily and not
mental (continued laughter), and that his learned friend had
become a fitting subject for his client, the doctor. (Loud
and renewed laughter.) His learned friend next told the
jury that his client had distinguished himself in the wars of
his country. He had, however, called several witnesses, but
little or nothing was told of his exploits, or whether he had
ever gone so far as to let blood with his lancet. (Laughter.)

t was necessary to uphold his .chsraoter and honour in con-
sequence of the insult the defendant had put upon him;
therefore he sent his counsel into court to boast of his valour
and ardour in the field, and then he commences a civil
action. But he had instructed his learned friend to say
that he felt desirous of going into the transaction during the
lust twelve months. His lordship, as he was in duty bound,
refused to admit that, as it would be a waste of the public
time. He (Mr. C.) then offered to refer the matter to any
gentleman of honour who would go into all the circumstances;
but the proposal was met with an emphatic " Nonsense,''
alleging that he wanted a public inquiry. Why could not
the result of the inquiry have been published ? But the de-
fendant wanted a salve to the wound which the horsewhip
had inflicted, and that, forsooth, was to be a passport into
respectable company. But his learned friend had said he
would have been pointed at as the man who had been horse-
whipped had he not brought the present action. Why, conk:
he not be pointed at after the trial was over as the man who
hadbeen horsewhipped and who had got oneshilling damages ?
It was also said, unless he brought the action he would not
be considered a man of nerve, and might thereby lose patients,
afraid, he (Mr. Cresswell) supposed, lest his hand should
tremble and he should prick a wrong vein. (Laughter.) It
was said, oh ! but he was desirous that the whole particulars
of the transaction should have been inquired into. There
was a mode besides the one he (Mr. Cresswell) had pointed
out, and which his learned friend had refused. He might
have indicted Mr. Forshaw, and then he could have come
into the witness-box, where he could have told the whole
story himself, and where he would have been cross-examined,
so that a full account of the whole transaction would have
been brought before the public. He said he had brought the
action to save his honour, not his pocket. He (Mr. Cress-
well) thought he showed no such desire. He told them,
however, that he brought the action to vindicate his honour,
because he had been struck with a horsewhip. It was clearly
proved that the whip was not used for the purpose of inflict
ing any bodily injury ; for the witness had told them it was
the smallest he ever saw. He boasted of being a man of
great personal courage, and this was done merely for the
purpose of exciting his Personal courage ; but instead of doing
so, he had brought the action. The defendant was com-
pelled to put two pleas on the record, and he (Mr, Cresswell)
was glad he
,had done so for it succeeded in causing them to
call two witnesses, one of whom had given an account of the
whole transaction, with which he was satisfied. A blow was
inflicted—the porters interfered—a policeman was sent for, and
the defendant was taken before a magistrate. What occurred
there? What was to prevent the whole of the circumstances
from being then heard, and the magistrate from deciding? He
had a twofold jurisdiction on such cases, and had power to
give damages for trespasses of that kind to the amount of £5.
But this man of valour—this man of spirit—of nice honour—
he who fought and bled for his country, whether for himself
or others did not appear, in order to maintain that courage
got the defendant tied hand and foot in order that he might
not break the peace. What was the conduct of the plaintiff
before the magistrate ? When the case was about to be set-
tled by him he said " No ; he would not have the defendant
whitewashed in any such way." Now, suppose a person had
sent a challenge to another, and in consequence was bound
over to keep the peace, what would be thought of the indi-
vidual receiving the challenge if he were to insinuate that
after he had sent the challenge, he procured the party to whom
it was sent to be bound over, in order to shirk the conse-
quences of it? Would he not wait until the period of his
recognisances expired, and then go to him and tell him he
was then free. that he came to inflict a personal chastisement
on him, not with a view of injuring him, but in order to com-
pel him to take that course which the laws of honour in this
country require. The learned gentleman concluded by ob-
serving that, under all the circumstances, the case was not
one in which the defendant had conducted himself in an
unbecoming manner, and therefore it was not a case in which
damages ought to be given against him.
The learned JUDGE summed up the case briefly, telling the
jury that their verdict must be for the plaintiff, but they had
to fix the amount of damages. It was one which he could
not think they would treat properly were they to treat it as
one which ought not to have come under their consideration.
The jury retired, and after being out of court some time,
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £2O ; costs, 40s.
Two other short causes were tried, one of which was unde-
fended, and the court rose at a quarter-past six.

CROWN COURT—THURSDAY
Mr. Justice Maule took his seat at 9 o'clock

BURGLARY

Robert Anderton, 45, [the man who was acquitted on
Friday last on the indictment which charged him with the
wilful murder of John Colton, as reported in the STANDARD]
Margaret White, 27, and Mary Brown, 22, were placed at
the bar on an indictment charging Anderton with a burglary
in the house of Richard Stopforth, residing near Wigan, and
the two females with feloniously receiving a portion of the
stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoners
were undefended.

The burglary, it appeared, was committed during the
night of th 20th July last, but no clue was obtained to lead
to the detection of the robbers until the police were occu-
pied in searching after the murderers of Colton. They then
found the whole of the stolen property in Anderton's house in
Manchester. The two female prisoners received some small
portions of it from Jane Roberts, who lived with him as his
wife, after Anderton was apprehended. The evidence, es-
pecially as against Mary Brown, depended upon Jane Roberts
—the woman who refused to give evidence against Anderton,
on the indictment for murder, and for which the learned
judge sentenced her to six months imprisonment. Her evi-
dence, however, was found to be very different to what she
had previously sworn before the magistrates. His LOBD-
SHIP ordered her to be sent back to prison, and an indict-
ment for perjury to be preferred against her. One part of
the evidence against Anderton was obtained from a statement
which he had made when he was apprehended on the charge
of murder ; but the clerk to the magistrates having sworn
that before the prisoner made the statement, he had told him
it might be used for or against him at his trial, the learned
JUDGE, on the authority of a decision of Mr. Justice Cole-
ridge, excluded the statement. The burglary, however, was
completely prcved. Anderton was found guilty, the other
two prisoners were acquitted.

Mr. BRANDT said that there were several other indict-
ments against the prisoner Anderton, in which other parties
were implicated as receivers, having had some of the stolen
articles given to them, but as they were not like the ordinary
cases of receiving, be would not proceed with them.
The JUDGE, however, directed the learned counsel to pro-
ceed with some of the other indictments.
ivr.r • BRANDT immediately assented. The prisoner was
then indicted for entering, in the daytime, the house of Mr.
John Johnson, at Pemberton. One of the articles stolen
from this
much lls the
which so coat with rounded skirts, concerning
Jane Roberts wa was said on the prisoner's trial for murder.
received the coat was again
called, and she stated that she had
Bakeley. john a) Anderton, and gave it to a man named
were also charged Blakeley, Mary 'Brown, and Jane M'Gowan
property. The in the indictment with receiving the stolen
ately found Anglenry acquitted all the receivers, but immedi-
rton guilty.
The CLERK of the COURT then called upon him to say why
sentence should not be passed upon him ?
hav
Te
mercy upon him.
The Learned JUDGE then addressed him. He had been
convicted of two of the many crimes of which he undoubtedly
had been guilty according to his own statement, which had been
given in evidence upon his trial for murder the other day,
when he had one of the most narrow escapes that ever man
had upon, such a trial. Although he (the learned judge)
found no fault with the verdict of the jury, who must judge
for
themselves in matters of fact, yet nobody could entertain
much doubt that he was deeply involved in the murder of the
deceased. According to his own statement, that very even-
ing he was out with Elijah Rowe, in order to murder Mr.
Part, who, fortunately for him, slipped past while he (Rowe)
was speaking with a woman. Their intention was to blow
Mr. Part's brains out with a gun ; and he (the prisoner) had
further stated that he had leagued with Rowe to murder a
Mr. Fletcher, and to commit several other crimes. It did
appear, therefore, that he had been guilty of the most atro-
cious crimes ever brought before the court. The probability
was that he was present at the murder of Colton, and most
likely his was the hand that destroyed the unfortunate man.
He would also have murdered Mr. Part if Mr. Part had not,
by extraordinary good fortune, got out of the way.
The Prisoner here interrupted the learned judge, and gave
a long account of what, he said, had taken place between him
and Rowe relative to the intention to shoot Mr. Part. Rowe
said, when he saw Mr. Part, " There is the man that com-
mitted me to Kirkdale ; I'll be d—d if I don't shoot him ;"
and he (the prisoner) said " No."
The JUDGE said that was a very different story to that
which he had told before the magistrates. It was very clear
that he had been in constant communication with Rowe just
about the time of Colton's murder : he was, upon his own
confession, a murderer—a man carrying on the trade and oc-
cupation of murder; housebreaking was a familiar operation
to him, and, in short, he had been guilty of as many crimes
as would furnish a calendar of themselves for a moderate-
sized county. He was fortunate in having escaped by the
verdict of the jury—a result which he (the learned judge)
thought was not very likely—the consequences of murder ;
and he supposed in the whole kingdom there was hardly one
person existing who would not have thought—whatever he
might think of the punishment of death generally—that he (the
prisoner) merited it. If there ever was an atrocious criminal
who deserved to be put away from society, it was him. For-
tunately for him his life had been spared ; and though he was
not subject to the punishment of death for the offences of
which he had just been convicted, he entreated him to spend
the remainder of his days in repentence for the sins he had
committed. The sentence the court would pass upon him
was the severest the law permitted for the crime of which he
had been convicted ; it was next to the punishment of death.
He must leave this country which he had polluted with his
crimes, and spend the remainder of his days in a foreign land,
under the severest restraint, and where, if he committed any
future crime, he would suffer the penalty of death without
the smallest eh.... of mitigation. He must be transported
for the term of his natural life.

MANSLAUGHTER

Daniel Simmons, 50, (who had been out on bail,) was
charged on the coroner's inquisition with having killed and
slain John Livingstone, at Liverpool.
No evidence was offered on the part of the crown, and the
jury, of course, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.