The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

CHARGE QF WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MURDER.

Robert Jenkins, aged 18, was charged with having in
August last wounded William Mackenzie, with intent to
murder him. Several counts in the indictment charged the
crime as having been committed With various other intents.
Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Preston for the prosecution ; the
prisoner was undefended.
It appeared, that on the 20th of August the prisoner was
passing along a part of Toxteth-park, near Liverpool, with a
dog. A man named Hessam Small, who was with Macken-,
zie, claimed the dog. The prisoner attempted to strike this
person. Mackenzie took hold of the dog, and the prisoner
told him that he would stab him if he did not loose the dog.
He took out a knife. Witness held the dog, and the prisoner
stabbed him in his left breast. He was taken to a surgeon,
and continued ill about 16 weeks.
The statements of Mackenzie were confirmed by other
witnesses. The surgeon who attended him described the
wound as a severe one. If the knife bad taken a lateral in-
stead of a central direction, immediate death would have
ensued. The wound was a very dangerous one, and the sur-
geon was apprehensive during several days that he would not
survive.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with in-
tent to do some grievous bodily harm.
He was sentenced to transportation for life.
Emanuel Routcliff, aged 43, was charged with having ma-
liciously wounded Terence Ward.'
Mr. Perry appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Murphy for
the defence.
Terence Ward is a car driver in this town. On Thursday
night, the 27th February last, he was standing with his car
in Williamson-square, when the prisoner came out of James
Ward's public-house and indecently exposed himself in the
footwalk. There were females near, and witness called him
a dirty fellow, and told him to be off—and that he ought to
be ashamed of himself. The prisoner resented this and put
himself in a fighting attitude. Witness sparred back and
struck the prisoner the first b'ow, upon which he retired
back into Ward's public-house. In a few minutes he re-
turned—asked witness if lie were the man who called him a
dirty fellow. He replied in the affirmative. They had
another sparring bout, and the prisoner threw Ward down
and stabbed him in the neck and arm. Several persons,
among whom was the policeman on duty, who saw the trans-
action, confirmed the above statement.
Mr. Chambers, a surgeon, who attended Ward, stated that
he had received three wounds on his neck, one of which went
very near to the carotid artery.
Mr. MURPHY set up in defence, that in consequence of an
injury formerly received in his head, the prisoner on the oc-
casion of any excitement, had not the perfect command of
his reason.
It was stated, by witnesses for the defence, that five years
ago, when the prisoner was at work upon the steamer Liver-
pool, his skull was fractured by a beam falling upon it, and
that he had been easily excited by a slight provocation ever
since.

The jury retired. They returned in about twenty minuers,
and delivered a verdict of wounding with intent to do grievous
bodily harm. They recommended the prisoner to mercy.
The prisoner was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
CIIARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Joseph Brown, aged 35, was charged with having unlaw-
fully killed and lain Henry Sepbton, at Liverpool.
Mr. Pugh conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy
defended.
On the 26th of February last, the prisoner, the deceased,
and several other persons were at a beer-shop, kept by Thos.
Massey, in Vauxhall-road. The prisoner and the deceased
were both in drink, and they had a quarrel. The prisoner
knocked the deceased down. The deceased, it appeared, was
very quarelsome, and provoked the prisoner exceedingly.
There was a broken tumbler on the floor, from which the
deceased, when he fell, received a wound. The deceased fell
of himself, without a blow, at the last round. He was taken
up, and died almost immediately. A post mortem examina-
tion was made by Mr. Black, surgeon. The deceased had
a wound in his chest, through which the finger could be in-
troduced to the cavity of the chest. Mr. Black, however,
could not say what was the cause of death. His lordship
said, as this was the evidence of the sur,,eon, there was an
end of the case. The jury acquitted the prisoner.
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.
Joseph Barber was charged with having feloniously killed
and slain Francis Huliy, at Chorlton-upon-Medlock.
Mr. Peel conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Brandt de-
fended.
The prisoner was employed by the authorities of Chorlton.
In Chatham-street, at that place, a, sewer was being exca-
vated, and according to the contract the soil taken out of the
sewer was to be relaid upon the street. It was necessary,
therefore, that the soil should be kept at hand. By the pri-
soner's orders, it was removed and placed in Clarendon-street.
The-deceased was passing in a cart, which came in contact
with the rubbish, was overset, and the deceased killed.
Before the case proceeded to the detail of evidence,
Mr. PEEL said there was room enough for two carts to
pass, and the prisoner had placed lights at first, but which
had been subsequently removed, but that they did not know
by whom.
Mr. PEET. said there was, in Manchester, a contest be-
tween the two coroners, and they had returned two very
different verdicts.
His LORDSHIP observed, that in such a case it would be
very hard to put a man upon his trial for manslaughter.
A verdict of Acquittal was consequently taken.
PERJURY.
William Dunn, aged 22, was charged with having, at War-
rington, committed wilful and corrupt perjury. The prisoner
pleaded not guilty.
Dr. BROWN conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that on the evening of Wednesday, the 27th
of November last, the prisoner went to Mr. Jones, deputy
constable of Warrington, and stated that on the previous-
evening when he was on his way from Staley Bridge to Man-
chester, he met four men whom he charged with having
robbed him. He induced Jones to go with him to the road,
where they met the men and apprehended them. They were
t Thomas-Bryan, 84,n• and jun., and the two parsons named.

Hogan. These men were brought before the magistrate,
Mr. Stubbs, the following day. Mr. Jones proved the de-
position of the prisoner on oath, before the magistrate, by
whom, and by the prisoner it was signed. In the deposition
the prisoner charged the men above named with having vio-
lently essaulted him on the highway, and robbed him of three
pound five shillings. The younger Bryan, and the female
with whom they had lodged, at the time when the robbery
was alleged to have been committted, proved that they were
at her house all that afternoon and all that night, and that
they did not leave their home till the following morning.
A Mr. M'Cormick, a catholic priest of Manchester, proved
that the prisoner called on hini a week before the time alleged
in the depositions, with his arm in a sling, and stated that
he had been robbed. He represented that he was in distress,
and Mr. M'Cormick relieved him.
Mr. Jones stated that the prisoner had not his arm in a
sling when he called upon him.
The prisoner protested_frequently during his trial the
Brvans and the Hogans robbed him.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The learned JUDGE remarked on the heniousness of the
offence, and passed the sentence of seven years transportation.

NISI PRIUS.-FRIDAY.

The court was occupied above four hours in trying the case

SEDDON V. SALKELD.

The question was merely one of the accuracy of account s,
involving a dispute as to the sum of £lOO.. Verdict for the
plaintiff for £5OO.

WINSTANLEY AND ANOTHER V. SCURTZ,

This was an action for the recovery of £2O 9s. for work
done. After the statement for the plaintiffs had been made,
his lordship, finding that the case was one which would lead
to long and tedious investigation into accounts, proposed
that it should be referred to arbitration. This was at first
refused by the plaintiff, when his lordship said it would he a
question, then, whether he should not suffer a case of that
kind to stand over until those causes of more importance, in
which a number of parties were concerned and witnesses de-
tained, had been disposed of. That this was precisely such
a case as ought to be tried by an arbitrator, and why, there-
fore, should witnesses in other cases be detained while the
court was occupied by the examination of accounts? The
parties ultimately consented to a verdict for the plaintiff,
subject to a reference. The three following cases, which
were of the same nature, were similarly disposed of.

SMITH V. HEMINGWAY.

This was an action to recover a balance of wages.
Mr. CRI;SSIVELL and Mr. CROMPTON' for the plaintiff;
Mr. MARTIN and Mr. WATsoN for the defendant.

It appeared that in the year 1838, Wm. Kavanagh, an ap-
prentice to the plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Smith, a master cooper
in this town, shipped on board the ship Ann, belonging to
Messrs. Hemmingway and Agett; as cooper. The vessel was
bound to the coast of Africa. Kavanagh understood that he
was to have five guineas a month. He signed articles in the
river, before sailing. After he had gone, the plaintiff gave
notice to the defendant that he was not to pay the wages, to
which Kavanagh would become entitled, to Kavanagh him-
self, but to him (the plaintiff,) as he had a legal claim to what-
ever might be earned by his'apprentice. In consequence of
that notice, the defendant refused to give Kavanagh his
monthly note. The voyage was about ten months and a half,
and his wages would amount to fifty-two guineas and a half.
The defendant had paid into court forty-two pounds, and the
dispute was only as to the remaining thirteen ponnds. Two
shipping notes given to Kavanagh, although not paid, indi-
cated the wages to be £5 ss. per month, and those were put
in and proved; but the plaintiff grounded his claim on the
general merits of Kavanagh as a workman, and the current
rate of wages paid to able coopers. Kavanagh had been in
the service of Mr. Smith about five years, and was stated by
witnesses to be- equal to a journeyman to his master. The
defence was that Kavanagh proved to be an incompetent
workman, and evidence to establish this was called. The
witnesses directly contradicted each other on several points,
and differed materially in their estimate of Kavanagh's ca-
pacity.
In the course of the trial, Mr. MARTIN took an objection
to the indenture of apprenticeship, on account of its not hav-
ing been stamped until more than six months after the date
borne by it.

The Judge admitted the document, giving Mr. Martin
liberty to move fot a nousuit.

CROWN COURT, SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Coleridge took his place shortly after hinc
o'clock.

SENTENCES.

Samuel Lord and Thomas Butterworth, indicted for bur-
glary, and convicted of larceny, or; Thursday last, and Mar-
garet Clayton and William Pollill, convicted, on the same
day, of having feloniously received the goods stolen by the
above, were placed at the bar, and sentenced to seven years'
transportation. _ _ .

John Smith, for stabbing William Derbyshire, with in-
tent to do him some grievous bodily harm, was sentenced to
fifteen years' transportation.

CHARGE OF MURDER.
Joseph Knight, aged 33, was charged with having, at Man-
chester, murdered a female child, not baptized. There were
several counts in the indictment, charging the prisoner with
having deprived the child of life in several ways, by suffocat-
ing, strangling, drowning, &c.
Br. Brown and Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution;
Mr. Venables and Mr. Wilkins defended.

The prisoner presented himself at the bar with a firm and
almost bold demeanour. As the indictment was being read,
he exelahned, boldly and abruptly, " I cant't hear ! 1 can't
hear!"

Mr. WILKINS.—Your counsel can hear : don't you inter-
fere.
The prisoner was furnished with paper and pencil. He put
on an aspect of very intense and inquiring scrutiny as the
counsel for the prosecution were addressing the jury ; and,
with many occasional odd gesticulations, took notes of what
was said. _ .

Mr. ' BRANDT detailed the circumstances of the case, up to
a certain point, to the jury.
It appeared, the prisoner had formed an improper con-
nexion with the wife of his brother. The latter had been
absent abroad for some time. The result of the intercourse
was, that the prisoner's sister-in-law was pregnant by him.
They were both wishful, when the child was born, that it
should be removed, in order that the husband, when he re-
turned, should not, see it, and the prisoner undertook to con-
vey it to a hired nurse. The mother believed that he had
placed it in safety. At length the neighbours began to won-
der what had become of the child, 'and the rumours that were
rife begot inquiry.. The. prisoner's statements were unsatis-
factory, and, at last, he was taken into custody and exa-
mined before a' magistrate. He would not give any account
of where the child was, and, in consequence of :this, he was
remanded several times. At length he stated that the child
had been very closely wrapped up to keep it from the cold,
and that, as he was going to the muse, he stumbled over
some stones and.:fell to the ground. When he got up, he
uncovered the infant to see if it were hurt, and found it
dead. Upon this he took it and threw it into the river. The
river Was searched, but no child was found.

Mr. BRANDT said, there was this difficulty in the case
which'•he did not, know how to get over : the law required
either that the body of a person slain, where an indictment
for murder was preferred, should be forthcoming, or that
evidence of the. death should be produced. In this case, as
the body had riot been found, the only evidence of death was
the prisoner's own statement. There the difficulty was : if
they took a part of the prisoner's statement as evidence, they
ought, in justice, to take the whole, and believe all his story.
His LORDSHIP said he had noticed the difficulty, but he
waited to see how the indictment would be framed. With
such evidence, it would be impossible to find the prisoner
• •
guilty.
A verdict of acquittal was taken..
Mr. WILKINS said, Mr. Amos has just informed him that
it is the general opinion of all the visitors of the prison that
Knight was insane.
The JUDGE.—I wish he way be.
MURDER.

George Murray, aged 25, and John Costello, 27, were
charged with having murdered Patrick Stakam, at Parr, near
St. Helens. The indictment charged Murray as the principal,
and Costello with having aided and abetted him.
Dr. Brown and Mr. Hulton conducted the prosecution.
Mr. Wilkins defended Murray, and Mr. Murphy, Costello.
In the opening statement of counsel, it was set forth, that
the quarrel which had led to the melancholy event which it
was the duty of the jury to investigate arose out of some dis-
putes between the natives of two Irish provinces, of which
they had heard so much during the present assizes.
Peter Maguire, a native of the county of Wicklow, in the
province of Leinster, stated, that he knew the deceased, Pa-
trick Stakam, who lodged at a beer-house, kept by Larry
Hall, at Smithy-brow, St. Helens. In the course of the
afternoon of Sunday, the 24th of November last, he and
Stakam had some ale together. They went to Larry Hall's
about half-past nine o'clock. The sat some time, but there
was no quarrel in the house. Stakam went out, and Maguire
followed him shortly afterwards, when he found him lying on
the ground with his head up against the door. Maguire
himself received a violent blow, but he could not say who
from. Stakam was taken up and carried into the house.
His head was cut and bleeding. He died on the following
Friday.
Mary Club, wife of Thomas Club, who resided next door

to Larry Hall, stated, that, on the night of the 24th Novem-
ber, she heard a quarrel opposite to the house. She was in
bed, and being alarmed at the noise, she opened the window
and looked forth. She saw four men fighting. The pa-
sonar, George Murray, was one of them, but she did not
know the other three. Stakam came out at the door of
Larry Hall's, she saw Murray go up to him and knock him
down with some weapon which he had in his hand. Maguire
came out and he was struck also by Murray.
Peter Smith, an Englishman, whose father keeps a beer-
shop in St. Helen's, stated, that he resided next door int
one to Larry Hall's. On the night of the 24th November,
he saw Murray and Costello in the road opposite to Larry
Hall's house. Murray had a small stick or poker in his hand,
with which he struck at Larry Hall's door, and immediately
went into the middle of the highway. There was a man
named Flynn there, and Murray struck bin) with the weapon
on the hat, saying, "You b-, why didn't you come out
and help me ?" He replied, " What could Ido !" Costello
went away for a few moments. Witness saw him coming
up the street afterwards, calling to Murray in Irish. He
followed Murray, and observed that Costello had a potatoe-
fork in his hand. When they got back to Larry Hall's,
Stakam came out, and they immediately changed weapons.
Stakam exclaimed, " Don't hit me !" Murray struck Sta-
kam on the head with the potatoc-fork, and repeated the
blow on his belly as be was falling, exclaiming, " I'm a Con-
might man, you b-! I'll knock your brains out." Ma-
guire came out, and he also immediately struck him, speaking
aloud in Irish.

Mr. MuRrHY and Mr. WILKINS tried to get from the wit-
ness that his father's beer-house was frequented principally by
Leinster men, and that there was another beer-house in the
vicinity to which the Connaught men usually went. The
witness, however, said that they went to both indifferently.
Maguire was recalled, and he stated that Maguire was a
Leinster man.
William Storey, a police constable of St. Helens, found
two potato-forks at Costello's house. When he apprehended
Murray, he told him what he was charged with, and Murray
replied that it was a bad job, hut he had got beaten himself,
but the blows which he gave happened to be a little harder
than those he received. When told that he had inflicted the
wound with a potatoc-fork, he said some person must have
put it into his hand.
Mr. Thomas Gaskill, surgeon of St. Helens, stated that he
was called in to the deceased. He found him lying insensi-
ble with a compound fracture of the skull, which extended
from the left ear to the crown of the head. He had no hopes
of his patient's recovery from the first. He died on the
Friday following. He examined the head of the deceased
after death, and found that the brain was lacerated to the
depth of two inches. One of the potato forks found at
Costello's house was produced, and the surgeon said that
the wound might have been inflicted by such a weapon as
that.
Mr. WiLiciNs, on behalf of Costello, contended, that the
crime amounted to no more than manslaughter, as it was
evident that Murray bad been grossly insulted and provoked
by those men seen by Mrs. Club, and whom she afterwards
missed, they having run away. When told that he had in-
flicted the wound with a potato fork, the prisoner was un-
conscious of that fact, so blinded had he been by his fury.
It was evident, therefore, that he struck the deceased, con-
ceiving that he was one of the men who had just struck him
and excited his anger.
Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury on behalf of Costello.
He contended generally, that there was no proof of such
premeditation and malice in this case as was required by
law to constitute the crime of murder.
Two respectable witnesses deposed to the peaceable and
general good conduct of the prisoners.
The jury retired at twenty-five minutes to one o'clock.
They returned at twenty minutes to three, and found Mur.