The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-03 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

friends were too poor to employ counsel for him, and he hoped
the court would ny some one to defend him.
His LORDSHIP requested Dr. Brown to undertake the de-
fence, and the learned Doctor immediately complied.
Mr. BRAN DT conducted the prosecutiOn. He said this was
another of those important cases iu which they had to inquire
into circumstances attending the death of a fellow-creature.
That the death of the deceased would amount to murder was,
he thought, pretty evident. They would have to inquire whe-
ther the prisoner was the person who hatt committed the act.
The learned counsel then entered into a detail of the circum-
stances which afterwards came out in evidence. The facts of
the case, he thought, did not carry it far enough to warrant con-
viction. There was, however, a sort of evidence which he
should not detail, as it consisted of certain admissions or pro-
mised professions of the prisoner. It was doubtful, however,
whether this could be received as evidence, as certain promises
were made to . him, and it would be with his lordship to say
whether this could be received as evidence. An overseer, who
was present, said you had better not Make any promises.
Robert Norris said
.he was the manager of Fogg's Colliery.
The prisoner at the bar worked as a collier there. Remem-
bered a man of the name of John Finney being there. Did
not see him alive. Saw him after he was dead. Took the
prisoner into his custody, and took him to James Spencer.
Pill a great many questions to him before he took him to
Spenc.-r. Took the prisoner to where the body was. James
Spencer uncovered it, and desired the prisoner to look at it.
He covered it as soon as he could. After that, Spencer, the
constable, and Parkinson took the prisoner down stairs. Does
not know certainly whether Spencer went into the room or not.
There was a person named Knowly there. Charged him
again with having been in the cabin. He denied it. Witness
said, "Your wife and sister say you .told them that you had.
been in the cabin." Said he thought it would he better for him
to tell. Said "James thou art sure to be found guilty, thou
hadst better declare; it will perhaps be better for thee " After
he hag staled this, Parkinson came into the room. Parkinson
is a special constable. Parkinson said—" Robert, don't make
him any promises." He spoke that loud enough for the pri-
soner to hear.

His Lonosnie said this would not do, for it was the duty of
Parkinson to have removed this impression. He ought to have
said—" it will not he better for you."

Mr. BRANDT said he would proveed to the next point.
James Spencer sworn—[s Constable of the township. Robt.
Norris delivered the prisoner into his care on the 31st Jan., and
asked him several questions. When Norris delivered him into
his custody he said he had confessed, but it was not said in the
hearing of the prisoner. They then took him to the Farmers'
Arms, having been joined by the prisoner's wife and brother.
Witness said the prisoner had murdered a man in a very brutal
manner. The wife and brother both spoke to the prisoner, and
said "What made thou to go near the cabin?"

Mr. BRANDI' salt( the prisoner made an answer to that, and
the question was whether that answer would be admissible or
not?

The examination continued. Witness had not held out anv
threat or promise, nor had he cautioned. Witness did not
know that Norris had held out any promise.
Dr. BitowN objected to the production of any evithince:.after
the promise made to No;-ris. This declaration was made after
the strongest threat on the one hand with the strongest promise.
The prisoner was still under the influence of this promise. The
learned .doctor cited a case King v. Sexton, from Russell, on
crime. 649. An officer sad given a prisoner two glasses of gin
and had thus obtained his confession.—Judge West held that
this evidence was inadmissable. The question would be whe-
ther the promise continued to influence the Tina of the pri-
soner.

Mr. BRANDT thought the nature of the answer was rather
that of a justification than as a confession.

The JunGE said he should be very sorry to make any such
distinction, because when it came before the court, it was, in
point of fact, a confession, and he thought the points should be
kept as broad as possible. The time that elapsed was only five
minutes, and when a man had once disburdened his mind by
confession, he was more likely to go on confessing. He thought
he could not admit this as it would be a very dangerous prece-
dent. A confession should never be taken without a caution,
and the after confession ought not to have been received with-
out a very strong caution, whereby his mind might be disabused
of the impression: He thought the best wav would be for con-
'stables never to take Confessions without first giving a strong
caution. It was exceedingly wrong in them to attempt to
worm a confession out of a man by these means of threats and
promises.

Mr. BRANDT said, under these circumstances he did not
think proper to proceed.•
The Learned Juocg said it amounted to a case of very
violent suspicion, but he thought they could not proceed to ihe
jury.
A verdict of not guilty was taken.
A•TTEMPTINO, TO POISON.. = •

Mary Sketrington, aged 24, was charged with having on the
Ist ofianuhry fist, arteinpted to poison Wary Byers, by send-
ing her a pudding in which arsenic was mingled.,
Mr. 11 [TON stated the case. _

• Ellen Bakk in, a little girl, lives at Upholland, with Mary
Baldwin,- :>, confectioner. Recollects theist January.: She was
then with Ellen Corles,s who is going of ten years old. , '['hey
were carrying pies. Knows the Owl at Upholland. Knows
Mary Skerrington. Saw her near the Owl, at the bottom of
Richardson's entry. She spoke to them, and asked if they
Were going up street; asked weie they going past John Torbut's.
They said yes. She said; `, Will you take this to Mary Byers,
and say it was sent by
,a woman that she is thick with." She
gave them a dish ‘,l jib a dumpling in it. She also gave them a
piece of currant cake. They tasted the dumpling, and it tasted
bitter and made their tongues smart. They took it to Torbut's
and gave it to Sarah Totbut.
The Prisoner.-1 never saw this girl that night.
Witness examined by the JUDGE.—Knew the prisoner. Hail
lived near her a long time.
In reply to the Prisoner.—You were there that night, and
you gave it to me.

Efien Corless stated: in nearly similar terms to the last wit-
ness,' that the prisoner met them, and that she gave them a
pudding in a pie dish. They tasted it and it was bitter.
Sarah Torbut, wife of J. Torbut, !ived at Upholland, and
Mary Byers lodged with her. Remembered Ellen Corless bring-
ing a pudding in a black dish. She stated that a young woman
had given it to her, and that it was for Mary Byers. Her fin-
gers slipped into the dish, and she put her finger into her mouth.
It was very bitter. She tasted it. further, and found it more
bitter. She put the piece from her mouth, and washed her
mouth out. Witness knew a man named John Sellar. He
had been a follower of the prisoner, and she had had two chil-
dren by him. Witness gave the pudding to Sarah Byers.
Sarah Byers, a female of rather unprepossessing appearance,
stated that Sellar had courted the prisoner formerly, and now
courted her.

.
Edward Swift, a constable, produced the dish. He had tried
an experiment with the dumpling on a dog. A piece the size
of a hen's egg was given to the dog. In twenty minutes the
use of its limbs was taken away. The dog died in two hours
and forty minutes afterwards.

Elizabeth Swift stated that she went into the prisoner's house
•tt one o'clock on New-year's-day. when she saw the prisoner's
little boy eating potatoes out of the dish produced. She knew
the dish, and had borrowed it from the prisoner frequently.
Thomas Fisher (swot n.)—lso. surgeon at Wigan. Received
a dish from the surgeon of Upholland. It contained a currant
pudding.. Applied a. test 16 it. Could riot detect any poison in
the pudding►. Analysed it as well as he was capable of analysing
it. Could not discover what it contained. It had more in it
than puddings usually have. Directed the constable to procure
a dog, and to give it a portion of the padding. Opened the dog,
and found the pudding undigested iu it. Did not observe any
morbid appearance in the stomach. Should think the pudding
contained some narcotic poison, which had destroyed the' dog.
Could not ascertain what. that poison was. Should think it was
a vegetable poison. Nut vomica would have that taste.
The J Doe said this indictmene was laid under an act of par-
liament which was passed last year, and which had altered the
law on the subject. The' clause under which this indictment
was laid made the offence of attempting to admininister poison,
though no injury should accrue, felony, and the person was
liable to transportation for lire, or for any period not less than
fifteen years.

.. -
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was
sentenced to transportation fur life.

MURDER.

John Davis, aged 29, was charged with the wilful murder of
Aim Davis, his wife, in this town, on the Ist September. The
prisoner was charged, under the coroner's inquisition, with mur-
der. The Grand Jury returned a true bill for manslaughter.

Mr. Harding condUcted the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy
defended the prisoner.
Alice Bradford stated that she lived in School-lane, in this
town. The prisoner at the bar was the husband of her late
daughter. Remembered Friday the first of September last.
She was in School-lane on that day at the cellar of the prisoner.
Her daughter when she entered sat at the further end of the
cellar. She (the daughter) shook her head at her. She did not
weep—she was past weeping. She (the d6ceased) wanted to go
out, but the prisoner, her husband, caught her by the gown, and
threw her to the back part of the cellar. He then knelt down
and beat her on the temples. He then got up on his feet, and
he kicked her on the side, and before lie left her he kicked her
in the belly.

Cross-examined by Mr. MURPllv.—Witness went out on that
day with some mangling. Knew a public-house kept by a per-
son called Hehblethwaile. Had not been there that day.. lied
not bought any spirits there, nor hail she taken any spirits to
her daughter that day. The husband of her daughter was a
pilot, and he earned money enough to keep them very comfort-
ably. They had lived at a house in Canning-street till they
went to the Cellar in School-lane. The house was a comfortable
house. Never knew her to pawn anything fur liquor. They
had been separated once. The learned counsel cross-examined
the witness very severely as to the mode in which the-injuries
were inflicted. The deceased was in the family way, and shortly
after the injuries had been inflicted she was delivered of a child
preinatutel,,v
Frances Ortritby was well' acquattitea wittr tho ac-e*E'sert -Re-
members Friday the first of September. Was in the cellar on
Friday, at one o'clock. The old woman was sitting by the fire,
and the prisoner sat near the door. The deceased sat on a
chair at the table. Some sharp words passed between them.
She had got as far as the first step of the cellar, when he pulled
her back and flung her on the floor. She fell on her side. He
then kicked her with his foot on her side and on her belly. He
struck her about the head with his hand shut. He stooped and
repeated the blows. Witness begged of him to desist, and not
to kill her. They lifted her into bed, but she never spoke
more. She died on Monday.
Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—The prisoner had had
some liquor, but he was not drunk. She had seen him drunker.
Had known Mrs. Bradford, the last witness, these thirteen years.
She was not drunk at the time. Has seen her drunk. Has
seen the deceased drunk. She did nut appear as if she had
taken anythini, to drink on that day. There was a mangle in
the cellar. The deceased did not. fall against the mangle.
The prisoner had shoes on when he kicked her. Witness had
not any drink herself that day. Did not know how the pilots'
wives were paid. Did not know that she had got a pound a
week from the Pilots' Committee. Heard the deceased say,
that he had let her get lOs. a week till that time, and that morn-
ing he had added ss. per week to it.
Jane Davis, a little girl aged about 10 years, having been
questioned by the Judge, was sworn—She remembered her
father and mother quarrelling. Frances Ormsby was there.
fly mother (said the witness) pledged my lather's shirt to get
his breakfast with, and when niv father came home he asked my
mother-for the shirt. He went to the kitchen to look for it, but
he could not find it. My mother wanted to go out in the street
to get air, and my father took hold of her and pulled her by the
petticoat and threw her back. He struck her with his han-d on
the face three times before grandmother came in.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muttony.—Her grandmother had
gone out to take some clothes. It was not to Mr. Hebble-1
thwaite's public-house she went to retch her grandmother. She
saw her bring home some liquor to the house that morning,
which her mother drank. She had fetched three glasses. Her
mother drank three glasses. Witness was sent for some liquor
that morning. Her mother drank it. It was in a glass. Her
father came in wet. He took off his shoes. He put them under
the table and looked for his shirt, but it was in pledge. Had
seen her father and mother quarreling before. Her mother
used to take drink, and her father-was angry at her. She had
pledged clothes before, but never to get liquor with the money.
Frances Ormsby and her mother, and grandmother were all
drinking that morning. When her father pulled her mother it
was by the petticoats, and she fell dowu backwards with her