The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

LANCASTER SPRING ASSIZES

•
The business of these assizes commenced at Lancaster, on
Monday last, before Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justice
Coleridge—glre former presidiyg in the Crown Court, and the
latter at Nisi Prins. The' calender contained the names of
sixteen prisoners fur trial, of whom six were charged with man_
slaughter. The criminal business terminated on Wednesday
morning, and Mr. Justice Patteson afterwards took two or three
civil causes. The cause liSt contained only nineteen cases for
trial, including the two indictments from I.:verpool. None of
the cases tried on Monday possessed any particular interest ex_
cepting to the parties.

TUESDAY, Maacti.2o.
Before Mr. Justice Coleridge and a Special Jury.
THE CHEMICAL NUISANCE.—THE QUEEN V. AIREY.
This was an indictment against the defendant, Mr. Oswald
Airey, for- having kept and maintained a nuisance in the town
of Liverpool.
The counsel for the prosecution Were Messrs. Cresswell,
Wightman, and Watson ; fur the defendant, Messrs. Alexan-
der, Starkie, and Tomlinson.
The Prosecution was conducted by Mr. Crooke, the Deputy
Town-clerk of Liverpool; the defence by Mr. J. Norris.
Mr. CriEsswatx, in opening the case, said he had the honour
to appear as counsel for the prosecutors, the Mayor and Town
Council of the borough of Liverpool, -who had felt it to be their
duty, as the municipal body governing that town, and watching
over the interests and welfare of its inhabitants, to institute these
proceedings. The defendant, Mr. Airey, was charged in the
indictment with carrying on a manufactory which sent forth
volumes of smoke and vapour charged• with a matter . highly
offensive, very injurious twproperty of almost every description,
more or less affecting the health, and decidedly affecting the
comfort of all who were exposed to its influence. The menu;
factory in question. was a manufactory of alkali, which of tate
Years had been carried on to a very great extent in the town of
Liverpool, as well as at other places, it having been discovered.
that alkali manufactured by this process was a good and cheap
Substitute for 'berate or kelp in the manufacture of soap. In the
processes gases of different 'kinds were evolved, which never
chemically ccinibined with the atmospheric air. There Was a
mechanical union fora time;.the.gases were carried sometimes
a ihOrt distance, sometimes further off; but wherever they fell
they produced the consequences which the jury would hear de-
scribed by the witnesses. He would call a vast number of per-
sons living in-the- neighbourhood of Canning-street, where the
defendant's manufactory was, and would show that when the
wind was from, the westward, or north-west, these vapours affect-
ed Scutland-road, Rose-place, Rose•hill, Richmond-row, St.
Aiine.street; and, as if to show that these fumes were no re-
specters of -persons,.be should. call a witness from the house
occupied,by the Queen's Judges at the assizes, to shod that
their lordships were by no means exemptfrom the consequences
to which all who came within the sphere of their action were
exposed. After commenting on the number of witnesses sum-
moned,: (we believe 140 for the prosecution,) he said he should.
• only call enough to prove that this was a v'ry extensive nui-
sance, arid one which must be very severely felt by the inhahi-
tanti. The' vapour occasioned coughing, a difficulty of breath-
ing, a sensation of pricking about the eyes, almost immediately
on coming into contract with it.- It penetrated dwelling-houses
and injured furniture ; the doors and windows could hardly
fit so closely as to exclude ; whilst, if the doors or windows
were opened, the house was almost immediately filled with it.
All metals were tarnished by it; all furniture was discoloured
by it; and the vegetation was 'destroyed. Dyers, drapers, haber-
dasheri,lood especially ironmongers, suflered in their business
, from its tendency to rust and discolour every thing exposed to ;
its action, Many persons had quitted
,their houses in conse-
quence,. and rents had' been much reduced in the neighbour-
hood. 'He would call the market inspectors, butchers, fish-
, mongers, and others, to show the effect which the vapour pro-
dticed on all sorts of provisions and vegetables exposed in the
market. for sale. He should call the masters of one or two
schools•in the neighbourhood, who would describe the effect pro-
duced on the scholarS;' -and tell them that any person. might
trace a soft of .while daze on the atmosphere, and note the place
where it fell; that they had seen it entering the school-room,
and alriest every pupil in it • beginning to cough at the same -
'time. How could they doubt that this was a nuisance? What
waiver could his learned friend give to these statements? It
would be said that Mr. Airey was not the only manufacturer of
. alkali, and it would be said that Mr. Airey only committed a
part of the nuisance; but he should cad witnesses.to say that
they had seen this white cloud in the air—that they had expe-
rienced all -the sensations described—that all the effects men- -
tioned had been produced; and if it were asked front whose
chimney this vapour came, he .was in a condition to prove that
it issued directly from Mr. Airey's premises, If Mt. Airey did
not prochice all the mischief—if there were seven other spirits
as wicked as himself—still one person was not to be allowed to
poison his neighbours because others were doing something of
the same kind—because' life was half extinguished by one nui-
sance, it ' was not to be 'wholly extingished by another. They
could not all be included iu one indictment—they must be in-
dieted one by one—and that the prosecutors !ma done. He
would not detain them longer in the outset. He would call
witnesses to' prove the 'case stated; he would call scientific
chemistrto prove that such effluvia must escape wherever such
manufacture was carried on, and then he trusted the jury
would be of opinion that it was high time for Mr. Airey to re-
move his works elsewhere.
Mi. John 'Logan examined by Mr..Wrormitars.—Occupied
sonae veneer saw-mills in Naylor-street, and lived iu the 'yard.
Knew Mr. Airey's works,. They. were about 130 yards distant
from his mill. Ile had seen a white vapour rising from the
works. •It came into the house and saw-mills. The effect it
hail upon him and his family was to make them cough, to make
their eyes sore, and occasion a nausea in the stomach. It
rusted the saws in the mill directly, discoloured furniture, took '
the gloss off paint, turned fenders, fire-irons, and polished steel
almost black: cut into brass, and took the prints out of
.Flinted cotton goods, 'curtains, &c. Had noticed all these af-
eets scores ^ and hundreds, of times. •
A Lth.e.witeess was cross-examined at very great length by Mr.
LtNrite, principally for the purpose of showing that there
, .4" great number of other works emitting smoke, and occa-
s.toning Other annoyances, both in the immediate vicinity of the,
defendant's works, and iu that part of the town ge.uerally.
Ite7examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—The vapour from the
alkali
works was a great deal worse than all the other smokes
put together.
GeOrge Pym, distiller, Scotland-road, gave similar testi-
. mohy as to the effects of. the vapour on himself apt others, and
• on varinus articles Of furniture.
Mr. J. Greethatu examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—Was a
Miller, and had mills for manufacturing flour in 'Naylor-street,
not far from the alkali works. Had a house in :Scotland-road,
but did not sleep there. Went to a house in the country four or
- five miles off to sleep/solely on account of the annoyance he re-
ceived from the alkali works, which spread itself into his house
and the whole neighbourhood. When the vapour penetrated
the mills, it destroyed the wires used in the machinery. Had
brought specimens of the wire. [The witness produced three
specimena of wire. The first, which had been wrapt up in pa-
per, was bright and free from rust; the second, which he had
hung up for a week at his house in the country outside of the
window, was not discoloured; and the third, a part of which had
. been covered, and the rest exposed to the action of vapour for
a week in Scotland-toad, was discoloured and coroded in the
exposed part of it. He also produced a piece of wire gauze,
which had been exposed in a similar way, from Tuesday till
Saturday, in Scotland-road, and which was so rotten that it
would not bear handling. He drove into town in the mornings
in au open vehicle. His harness was brass Mounted, and he
started with it pretty well burnished, as a matter of course. On ,
the road he frequently came in contact with a cloud of the white'.
vapour, which changed the colour almost immediately. He bad
• seen'it quite bright at Everton, and in five minutes afterwards,
before he reached his shop, it was tarnished and discoloured.
. When the wind was in that direction, they were frequently
obliged to shut the shop doors and keep customers out. Some-
times the customers could hardly speak to tell what they want-
ed in consequence of the vapour. He had a house and shop in
Meadow-street, close behind the one he occupied, which had let
fur £2l a-year. He had since repeatedly offered it for £l5, and
- could not let it. The objection to it was on account of the alkali
works.
Mr. James Hartley, timber dealer, Rosehill, gave similar tes-
timony, and stated, that his mother had been obliged to reduce
' the rent of a house in Beau-street, about half a mile from Mr.
Airey's works, in consequence of the tenant's complaints of the
• ill effects of the vapour.
Mr. James -Davies, silk dyer, Seolland-road, produced a
Canton crape shawl which he had hung up to dry in the open
air, wrapping a part of it round the pole. The part exposed to
' the vapour was of a dullish' red colour, whilst the rest was an
-.excellent black. The witness requested the jury to examine it,
• and said, that if they put the red part to their lips they would
perceive that it was impregnated with salt. He produced ano-
ther specimen of black, part of which, alter a few hours' expo.
sure to time vapour, had been turned blue. This had not been
exposed to so much acid. His family formerly lived at the shop
ir Scutland-road, but above twelve months ago he was obliged
to remove; in consequence of the annoyance from the alkali
works.
Edward Lunt examined.—Lived in Burlington-street, about
a quarter of a mile from these works, and was very much an-
noyed,i.et.,ehy, the vapour
and
when the wind set' that' direction. It
.ieut:;,;ilyPiiis wfamily :very inoelt in their breathing, par-
recommendation of Dr. Yates, Mr.
Hicks, and Dr. O'lloi is ~tiife. By e
ern 11, who attended her, he had sent her
away more than once forctia rig., of air. It occasionally affect-
ed him very seriously, and had mop, hint ill twice; The etress deschbeet the effects of the vapour On furniture, gra t es, &c.
iii the same manner as the former witnesses, and stated that an
• botv and a half was siaCient.to .co the mischief, and that his
'erupt door often looked as if it had been daubed over with greasy
Water, or streaked with black lead, in consequence of the vapour.
If it, caught White paint it took the, gloss off and turned it yel,
low. The receptacles for gas were about 150 yards from his
house.
.Did not think.that the effect the,door could be- pro-
klueed by gas. The smell frOM the gas was not a fiftieth part as
bad as that from the chemical works:
•
• Mr. master of the. North Corporation School, and
Mr; ..Nelson
Morris, teacher' of the North Infant School, testified to
tlte.annoyance
.produced by the vapour to themselves and their
"1"1411, and also to its destructive effects on the plants and
in vegetahlesthe sch ODI .yard which adjOins Mr. Airey's che-
mical' works. " •
Mrs. 'Wharton, keeper of the judges' lodgings in St. Anne-
:street, 'spoke to the effects of the vapour on grates, fire irons,.
,knives and forks; plate, furniture„&c. there.
Mr. Edward ChurchLud, haberdasher and hosier, Scotland-.
,road,-near St. Martin's market, de.seribed the injury which the
vapour did to his goods, and exhibited specimens of thimbles,
book's and eyes' Sec., which became discoloured and rusted after
51 short exposure in his shop. He had bad the management of
similar concern in another part 4.3 f the town, and never saw
.Uny thing of the kind before.
Captain Frederick Win. Burgoyne, R.N., residing iu St.
Anne.:street, next door but one to the judges' lodgings, de-
, sciibed the effects of the vapour on grates, brass ornaments, &c.,
in the same way -as the preceding witness, and stated that he
was obliged to keep knives, plate, &c. wrapped•up in leather.
He had a garden, bat it was of no use. His attention had been
called to the effect of the vapour on vegetation in a very extra-
(lrdinary manner. When he came to the house he found the
t;arderi full of deadtrees. It appeared to have been one of the
best in Liverpool, The stump-of an old vine was there, which
" few years ago had produced an immense quantity of grapes.
There were five or six other stumps of vines, currant bushes,
'ttid wall trees, all dead, or producing nothing. 'He was de-
termined to see whether he could do anything .with it, fur,
though a sailor, he was fond of gardening. He went to an ex-
- l'euse of £3 or £1 for seeds and other things. Whilst the wind
ta,s to the south or west, he friend the peas coming up beauti-
rtl,..Y u;. S9-much so, that he, went to a neighbour, and said, "Yo
11
a,"c th `abirut- these chimneys; but it's all nonsense."
Ju
ana', te •
i.) Next evening lie was going out; he opened the
-d'"tt',and certainly he did feel the vapour in- a most dreadful
, I was obliged to shut the door. Oh,' save I, here it
thr;lliich. laughter.) Now. I; will see what effect this has
garden and upon my beautiful.(Laughter.)
II„ went
tiext morning, and they looked exactly as if a flant-
-1,):':u.`,..bt0l bcen passed (town, though they were coining on most
t. dully the day before. Ile ha'l made two or ihreeatteMpts
. ;thee then, until he had lost £5 or £3, and then he gave it up.
• n At, h. 41-past o'C tick •the further hearing of the case Was
AU.,I tuned till the morning.

WEDN gSDAY, :11AttcH`21
THE QUEEN V. AIRE/.

At the opening of the Court th►s morning, Mr. WIGHTMAN

Robert Grose, the superintendent of St. Martin's Market,
who stated that-the chemical works of the defendant were about
200 yards distant from the west end of the market. Had seen
the market completely filled with the white vapour from Mr.
Airev's works, when the wind was in that direction. Had seen
its effects on meat, fish, and vegetables, and heard many com-
plaints about it from butchers and.others. It discoloured meat,
and made it unsaleable until the outside had been pared off.
The vapour rusted the butcher's saws, -knives, &c., and also
the books in the market, iu a very short time. It also dis-
coloured fish, rendered it unsaleable, and withered up vegeta-
bles, particularly tender cabbages. Recollected the vapour
coming into the market on the 18th December, and again on
the 3d January last. Could trace it distinctly to Airey's chim-
ney. .It produced the effects which he had described on the
meat, fish, and vegetables exposed for sale.

Peter Campbell,- the market constable at St. Martin's, gave
testimony to the same effect as that of the last witness.
Mr. William Hind, a butcher, occupying a shop in St. Mar-
tin's Market, described the effect which the vapour produced
on his meat, saws, knives, &c. It discoloured the meat, turn-
ing it of a darkish colour. He was obliged to pare it. It rusted
'his cleavers, and knives, sometimes in half an hour, sometimes
in two hours, just according to the• thickness and strength of
the vapour. Sold the outside parings at a great loss. If he
were selling the meat at sixpence a pound, should sell the par-
ings at fourpence or fourpence halfpenny.
John Kirby stated, that he was almost the only fishinon-
ger left in St. Martin's Market. All the rest had ran off, ex-
cepting one woman. Had sold fish there ever since the market
was opened, six or seven years ago. All his neighbours were
stunk out. Had observed this vapour coining into the market
tod often. It came in often, and was quite dreadful. It very
nigh roasted fresh fish. (Laughter.) After it had been pretty
well seasoned with the vapour, it was not saleable at all. "When
the quality conies," continued the witness, " they say, • how
do.you sell our fish ?' I tells them. Then they say, It's not.
fresh.'. • Well ma'am,' says I, • its because of the vitriol.'
(Laughter.) • Well, never mind,' says they, I'll wait till to
morrow,' and so they leave the fish to perish." (Much laugh-
ter.) Had put wet cloths over the fish to protect it from the.
vapour. Theregwas a Welshwoman at the door: when she saw
the vapour coming, she shouted out, "John !—vitriol."—(much
laughter)—and he immediately put cloths over it. That was
when Mr. Airey was giving sauce to the fish, and gave it too
strong. (Laughter.) The vapour was so strong that it would.
go through the cloth. It also covered his scale beams with rust.
There used to be about thirty fish-dealers in the market. - He
now had the monopoly almost entirely to himself. It had taken
them all off but one, Mr. Ailey had too strong a breath for
_them. Latighter.) Dealt in oysters. The vapour jaw-locked
them.

The JoumE.-,--What do von mean by jaw-locking an oyster ?
Does it give them a locked-jaw? Witness: They open, and
can't close again for the vapour. (Much laughter.)
The JUDGE.—Then 1 seppose the vapour makes the oyster
open of
_itself, without a knife ?—Witness : Can't tell, my lord.
By Mr. Wifinzraaai.—Have you ever traced the vapour to
Mr. Airey's chimney?—Yes: Has it any effect on you?—Yes.
What effect ?—lt sets me coughing, aua makes me set up my
back like a poisoned rat. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDEII.—A. poisoned rat sets
up its back as high as it could get it. There was only one other
fish-dealer in the market, and the bottom of her pocket was
nearly bare. She was not a witness, and he was sorry for it.
Could not tell whether she was ill or not; she might be tipsy.
Thought that very likely. The oysters were jaw-locked with
the vapour, and lay still enough. It killed them. It killed
lobsters too. It set them ft °thing, at the mouth and killed them.
The crabs could not steal away either; it killed them too. Did
not sell perriwinkles and limpets. but supposed it would kill
theta too. There had been about 30 fish-dealers in, the market.
He had stood them all out except that one woman, and she was
as tough as leather.
Mr. G. Holden, inspector of markets, formerly a butcher,
and Mr. R. Horner, butcher, Scotland-road, gave similar tes-
timony as to the effect of the. vapour on. Meat and other articles.
Mr. William Taylor; Mr. James Gill, Mr. 'l'. S. Barker, Mr.
Daniel Brook, and Mr. James Wood, surveyor of buildings for
the northern district of Liverpool, proved the depreciation of
property in that quarter, and attributed it principally to the
vapour from Mr. Airey's works.
-Mr. W. Gregory, pawnbroker, Ellenborough-street, produced
a silver tea-pot, a set of fire-irons, and various other articles
pledged with him, which had been rusted or otherwise injured
by the vapour.
Mr. Thomas Atkinson, inspector of weights and measures,
stated that at the beginning of this month he went to the pre-
Inisei of Mr. Airey for the purpose of inspecting his weights.
-He asked. Mr. Airey bow he accounted for the corroded state
in which they were, and whether he thought it was from the va-
pour or gas from the works. - Mr. Airy said he could not ac-
count for itany other way.
James Colborne, principal turnkey at the Borough gaol,
spoke to the effects produced by the vapour on himself and the
prisoners in the gaol, and also on the vegetables in the yard and
garden.
Mr. George Rogerson examined by, Mr. CRESSWELL.—Was
a surgeon, and lived in Duke-street, Liverpool. . Knew the na-
ture of the business carried on at the alkali works. The ma-
jority of them manufactured sulphuric acid. In the process' of
manufacturing, sulphuric acid gas, called muriatic acid gas, was
generated, and sent up the long chimney along with the smoke
from the furnaces. He had performed several experiments in
Order to ascertain what proportion of muriatic acid gas mixed
with the air could be salubrious. Had first tried it in a concen-
trated state. On the immersion of a growing 'plant into it, the
leaves were withered and curled up. and the plant killed in a
few minutes. It destroyed the branches and trunk of a young
myrtle tree in ten minutes, and succulent plants somewhat
earlier. He then tried the effects ofcurrents of this gas coming
iu the same way as from the chimney through the atmospheric
air, and found ihat it was destructive as well as by immersion,
but not so quickly. He then tried it in a concentrated state on
animals, by immersing mice and birds-in the gas. He found
that the auinial, immediately on its immersion, panted, and
respiration became extremely'difficult ; the covering of the eve
was completely destroyed in its texture,. the animal becoming
blind, and ultimately expiring in convulsions in from ten to
fifteen minutes. He then tried the effects of muriatic gas mixed
with various proportions of air, and found that one pelt of mu-
riatic acid gas mixed with five parts of atmospheric air curled
the foliage of growing plants, quickly destroyed the leaves, af-
terwards affecting the branches and trunk; and, on removing
the plants into the• pure air, they never recovered. Found it
equally destructive to animal life. He had made the experi-
ments with various proportions—always with the same results
excepting as to time, and found it prejudicial, though not de-
structive, both to plants and animals, up to the proportion of
one part of muriatic acid gas to 1000 parts of common atmos-
pheric air. 'Fried one part to 1500, and found that it then rap-
parently bad no bad effects. Had inhaled the gas himself, and
suffered severely from it, owing to its having escaped from de-
fects in the-instruments he used in these experiments. In con-
sequence of inhaling the gas, he suffered inflammation of the
inner membrane of the lungs, and from a smarting of the eyes.,
The gas was of a nature to affect the mucous membrane along"
the whole tract. Had seen the specimens of rusted and Cor-
roded articles exhibited in court. The gas in question would
produce that effect. In dyeing articles it would convert vege-
table blues into reds. The impregnation of the air with muriatic
acid gas was decidedly injurious to the comfort of the inhabit-
ants, and decidedly prejudicial to the health of persons subject
to affections. of the mucous membrane, covering the eyes, or
entering into the lungs, stomach, and bowels.
• Mr. G. Webster, chemist, Mr. J. Cooper, surgeOn, and Dr.
Reynolds, gave corroborative testimony as to the effects of the
:_gas on vegetable and animal life.
Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury at great length for the
defendant, contending on the one hand that there was no evi-
deuceby the alkali works only, i
no
one
et o
andro
fe even
tooe tno pint rhui
enc principally,—and, i
trade pal l ya,
to.shcrw. that the injuries complained of were occasioned
nmda,nounh
manufactures
thenteutorntehstehor
that
individualst he businessengaimportance,n—da
engaged in
f
the county generally, to be put down merely because a few
indi-
viduals in the neighbourhood suffered, or • d
becauseacie that theysuf-
fered, some slight inconvenience from
vapour issuing from the chimneysi , they saw the
of. the alkali works, whilst
other gases, more injurious, and which might be the cause of
all the mischief complained of , were quite invisible.—The learned
gentleman called no witnesses.
Mr. Justice Cot.
ERIDGE said that the doctrine of the law with
,respect to nuisances was this •—A
nuisance was not that which
was injurioutsto one, two, or • three persons only, but something
that was injurious, generally
to the neighbourhood. In the next
e an imaginary one,—but a substan-
tial injury either toperson o
It must be either injurious to lifeboth in nature_and amount.
or obnoxious
to the senses. It
was not necessary tl • t health should be seriously injured, in;
order to constitute a •
nuisance —but it roust be a substantial in-
jury
If it were an injury to property, it must be a substantial injury'
to that also. Now; order to convict Mr. Airey on this indict-
nient, they must be convinced that he had occasioned a substan-
tial injury to the propert. of is nei
y ghbours,—a substantial in-
jury to their health, or a substantial injury to their senses. It
was not necessary that it should amount to all three; it was
sufficient if it amounted to one. In the next place they must
he satisfied that the nuisance was one which had grown up within
a few years,.and not one in which the neighbourhood had ac-
.quiesced. And in the thirdthey must be satisfied that
.Mr..Airey yvit • place,
. , s responsible either in the whole, or in part, for
the nuisance. •the
nuisance nee, he Must' b
If Mr. flirty ouly occasioned a part of
be responsible for his share—others for theirs..f
They must st be i
• di-qGled one by one, for that the only way o
Ir getting at tnem; -they could not all be included in one .indict-
inent, since they were not engaged in committing a joint offence.
If A was not to be convicted to-day, because others were C. 01117
Milting a similar' 'offence. then B could not be convicted tiatnor-'
,tow, because A was not convicted to-day,—
and the next day C.
could not be couvicted,be
cause A and -B
had escaped. if A
Conimitted a part of the nuisance, he must he responsible for it,.
and so with the others. After' the evidence they bad heard, they,
could hardly doubt, that the injury occasioned in the neighbour-
hood -was a nuisance iu point of law. As to the date, it was
admitted on all hand that this was a trade which had grown up'
within the last few years, and therefore there was nothing like
What could be called an acquiescence on the part of the public.
There would, therefore, be no difficulty as to the second point..
As to the third point, the jury would have to'say whether Mr.
Airey contributed his stare to the nuisance, if the alkali works
weie a nuisance: The scientific witnesses had all agreed that
muriatic gas would produce all the effects described by the wit-
nesses in this case. It appeared that other gases produced the
same effects, and if the matter stood there, they could hardly
, proceed to a verdict; but the muriatic acid gas was traced in - a
white stream of vapour to the places where the injury was p
dneed, and they had the concurrent evidence of the medical 1-
wit-
nesses that muriatic acid gas would produce, and did troad uce,
all the effects ascribed to the vapour by the non d}. me teal wit-,
wit-
nesses. The question was notnow whether the f annoyances in'
the neighbourhood proceeded in some degree
factories, but whether the alkali works occasioned
min other manu-
factories,
whether they were injurious to the Ted a part of them,
health, comfort, or pro-
perty of the inhabitants.
The jury retited at half-past five o'clock- They returned in
less than ten minutes with a verdict of guilty:

THE QUEEN V. STOCKDALE.

This was a similar indictment preferred btv the Mayor and
Town-conucil 'against Messrs. Thomas Stocldale and Son.
alkali manufacturers and soap boilers; in Canning-street. A
special jury was summoned to try it, and the counsel were the
same as those engaged in the last case. • .
Mr. Justice CorAfinGk alsO asked whether, with the same
Judge and' jury the defendants could expect a result different
from that of the last indictment.
Mr. A LE'xAN DER- adinitted that he could'not.hope for a dif-
ferent result, and by direction of. his lordship the jury returned
a verdict.of guilty.
Another case, an action for assault and false imprisonMent,
was tried afterwards, which terminated the business at Lan-
caster.-•

POPERY IN NEWPOVN.M.A N D.—The-Chief JUstiCe. of New-
foundland has felt it his duty io—leetUre.,.th«;RoMin catholic
bishop; Yleming, upon the impropriety of drawing tin a will for
a dVing man, by which will he..was himself to succeed to a
valuable freehold property. The consequence has been a series
a most. unjustifiable attacki upon the Chief Justice by the
Roman catholic Press.

LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY.

Mr. Justice Pattison took his seat this morning, a few mi-
nutes before ten o'clock. He was attended by the sheriff. The
court having been opened with the usual formalities, the names
of the justices of the peace were called over; subsequently the
mayors and coroners within the southern division of this
county. The following gentlemen were then duly sworn on the
grand jury.—
Hon. CHAS. WM. MOLYN.EUX, Lord MOLYNEUX,
of TOXTETH, Foreman.

Sir Henry Bold Houghton, bart., Bold Hall.
James Aspinall, Esq., Liverpool.
Peter Bourne, Esq., Liverpool.
Thomas Bright Crosse, Esq., Shaw Hill.
Win. Wallace Currie, Esq., Ellerslie.
Wm. Earle, jun., Esq., Liverpool.
Pattison Ellames, Esq., Allerton Hall.
_ .

Jas. Hilton Ford, Esq. Rainford.
Benjamin Heywood, isq., Claremont.
Michael Hughes, Esq., Sherdley Hall.
Win. Ford Hulton, Esq., Hutton Park. •
Charles Lawrence, Esq., Wavertree Hall.
Robert Josias Jackson Norreys., Esq., of Davyhulme Hall.
Charles Orrell Esq., Blackbrooke.
Shakespear Phillips, Esq., of Barlow Hall.
Stanley Percival, Esq., Liverpool.
Wm. Rathhone, Esq., Greenbank.
Nicholas Blundell, Esq., of Crosby.
Charles Tayleure, Esq., Parkfield. •
Charles Tempest, Esq., Rixton.
Humphrey Traffard, Esq., of Trafford Park.
Win. Gerard Wahnersley, Esq., of Westwood.
The usual preliminary proceedings having been gone
through,
His LORDSHIP addressed the grand jury to the following
effect:—He assured them that it was with considerable pain
he had to address them on the duties which devolved upon
them. The calendar was a .frightful one. Besides nineteen
cases of death which were to be brought before them, there
were several others of cutting, stabbing, and wounding to do
grievous bodily harm. Of the nineteen cases in the calendar,
six were set down as murder; but of the • cases denominated
manslaughter there were two, he thought. which would turn
out, on examination, to be murder, and there was another case,
not mentioned in the calendar, which wuuld probably come
under the same head. He then said, that however painful it
might be to their feelings to prefer an indictment for a charge
which, if proved, occasioned the forfeiture of life, instead of one
which was not penal, vet it must be recollected that the protec-
tion of the lives of her Majesty's subjects was an important
duty. Some of the cases to which be had alluded were for what
were termed kicking and. punching, although there were not
many on the present occasion. It was a fearful thing that such
a barbarous system should prevail in any part of thocouutry.
He had hoped that it had been nearly done away with; but
such was not the fact; there had been several cases of the kind
at Lancaster. in one of the cases which would come before
them, it appeared that the deceased himself had been fighting
in the same fashion, so that there was no reason to suppose that
the prisoner had taken any undue advantage—he had acted to-
wards the deceased as the deceased had acted towards him. But
death was frequently the result of that savage practise of kicking
an antagonist when on the ground, and he declared it to be his
determination, when a case was brought home against any indi-
vidual, to punish him with great severity, in hopes that such an
example would do something towards the extirpation of so cruel
and disereditable a system. The grand jury were most probably
aware that the laws with respect to murder and manslaughter
were not affected by the act-which was passed iu the last session
of parliament, but which did not come into operation until Oc-
tober last. Manslaughter was a crime which varied most in the
circumstances with which it was attended. Sometimes it ap-
proximated very nearly to murder, and sometimes it was of a
character very trifling indeed. One person might strike another
in the heat of passion, and falling, his head might come in con-
tact with a stone; but there was in that case no intention what-
ever to-do murder. According to the laws of the land, murder
is defined to be an act of homicide committed with malice pre-
pense; and it was also most distinctly laid down that all homi-
cides should be deemed to be malicious until the contrary ap-
peared, and it was, therefore, incumbent on the prisoner, When
placed upon his trial, to show the real nature of, he case. Ge-
nerally speaking, circnnistances of
.extenuation did arise in the
course of the proceedings. The circumstances which would
reduce a case from manslaughter to murder were distinctly
stated; of those provocation might be mentioned, when resented
at the time; but no provocation given at an antecedent period
could be admitted as an extenuation. In fact, for a case of ho-
micide to be so reduCed to manslaughter, all the facts of the case
must lead to the conclusion that it was nut the result of a cool
and deliberate parpose,butwas the immediate effect of the angry
feelings which had been generated on the spot and at the
moment. Now, there were one or two cases where the whole
cause of provocation consisted of words; but words only, were
not deemed a sufficient provocation ; they would not reduce
murder to manslaughter. But when the provocation consisted
of a blow, that was sufficient to du so, provided the weapon with
which the provocation was resented was in the hand of the per-
son at the time. There were also cases where the nature of the
instrument or weapon with which death was inflicted would
have the effect of limiting the crime to manslaughter; if, for in-
stance, a person "was to strike another With -his fist and knock
him down, so that the fall and blow should befatai, that would be
considered as manslaughter, for they could not from the facts
draw the inference that serious injury had been intended. There
was one case which would come before them, in which the pi i-
soner stood committed for manslaughter, where the whole pro-
vocation consisted only of words. The deceased had merely
remarked to the prisoner, who was quarrelling with his wife.
"Are you not ashamed to behave in such a manner?" on
which. with some sharp instrument, he inflicted a wound on
the deceased, which severed the carotid artery. They had
also the case of a man named Davies, who was quarrelling,
with his wife when in a state of drunkenness, (a great many
offences were committed by men when in that state, but t
drunkenness was no extenuation—it was rattier an aggrava-
tion,) and then seized hold of her by her clothes and knocked
her on the ground. Though she was six months advanced in
pregnancy he also kicked her most shamefully when upon the
ground, and that was called a case of manslaughter.; but, if the
factslstated in the depositions could be established it was a clear
case of murder. The next case which he should notice was
marked Nos. 8 and 9in the calendar, where a person named
James Walters was said to have been killed by a cart running
le-
nes
eher
dt:punishment
N beat
manslaughter,s.
over him; that seemed to be a case of manslaughter. It ap-
peared, however, that there had been three carts running races,
and if the accident could be proved to have occurred through
:et
where
ae
stick.
da tc owherebhes t
raa
hsb
ceel
a2B
resisting
n d w 29 s
negligence then it wawawpstpht
rhlkei e da
beadl 2sol,
merited.apse:isiodntabout
ha
ot Num:a:
was also a case of manslaughter; but he did not know whether
there was sufficient evidence to implicate both. If the act was
committed by only one of the prisoners, the other had probably
,assented pro ably
assented to it; the case was somewhat ambiguous, but they
would no doubt be able to pick out the truth. No. 34 was a
case of manslaughter, where John Whitehead 'was alledged to
have been killed by Joseph Charnock. They had disagreed,
and had begun to fight in the, savage way peculiar to a portion
of the county.; one man knelt down, and, while he was kneeling,
the other seized hold of him and broke one of his ribs. He then'
came to No. 45, another case 'of manslaughter., in which they
would find some contradictory evidence. Nos. 46 and 47 was -A
case of manslaughter, which should undoubtedly be preferred
against the engineer or the person whose duty it was to keep a
look Out, though who that was did nut appear to be certain.
No. 57 was another case of manslaughter, and a very trivial
one; the death had resulted from a blow in fighting, but it ap-
peared that no blows were struck except with their fists; all
fighting, however, was undoubtedly illegal. There was another
case not included in the calendar, of a medical man who had
been charged with having, either through ignorance or negli-,
gence, caused the death of a woman in child-birth, and it was
left to them whether it should go before a jury or not. It ap-
peared that the medical man had been in the habit of attending
upon the deceased, and it was said that, when first called in, he
bad adminiStered medicine for the purpose of delaying partu-
rition, when, as other medical men declared, it ought to have
been forced. lie, however, had distinctly stated to his patient
that he was elsewhere indispensably engaged, and advised them,
if necessary, to call in another person and not to depend upon
him. To this the deceased had an objection, and her death was
the result. If the person accused had not attended his patient
properly he was undoutpdly amenable to law; but, if the con-
trary was the fact, he thought that the individual ought not to
be put upon his trial, because it would be a fearful thing if, for
every failure of medical 'skill, a medical practitioner were to be
brought before a legal tribunal. It appeared to him that neglect
could not be attributed in the present case, he had distinctly
told the woman he could not attend upon her, and under the
circumstances it was very questionable whether he ought to be
put upon his trial. He then came to those called murder cases,
of which there were six. Under that head should have been
placed the case of Johu Ryan, who was indicted for man-
slaughter, but he thought it quite clear that a bill for murder
should be found; there bad been inflicted on the deceased a
wonnd with a sharp instrument, which had severed the carotid
artery. Whether any thing could be found in the evidence to mi-
tigate it, be could not tell, but the case seemed to fll .1 •ea) with-
in
the rule he had laid down in the distinction which he had
drawn between the two offences of- manslaughter and murder.
No. 60 related to a new-born child; but it could not be consi-
dered as a case of concealment, because by that the act of par-
liament meant the secret burying or otherwise disposing of the
dead body of a child, for the purpose of concealing it; , but in
the cake before them it was a living body, and the act made no
provision respecting the hiding of a living body. The child, in
fact, had lived for some time, and the medical men declared that
it had died by suffocation, and that there were marks of pressure
on the throat. If that had been done in the act of delivery, the,
woman was guilty of no offence—it would not even be man-,
slaughter ; but it was said the marks were' such as could not
have beem made unintentioually. There was also an unfortu-
nate expression she had made use of, which would tend to show
that she was aware that the child was living: but, then, it was
also known that theme was nothing so difficult as to give the very.
words which a person had used; it was almost impossible. Ex-
cept a short-hand writer were to take them down, they would
be quite unable to repeat the precise words he had used ; they
might give the substance, perhaps, and that would he all. The
The case of Charles Worthington, (No. 61,) who was charged
with murder, was as clear a case of manslaughter as he had ever
read, and of manslaughter only. James Callagan, it.appeared,
would not suffer the boy to grind his chisel at the grind-stone ;
altercation ensued; he struck the boy ; and the boy having a
chisel in his hand, struck Callagan with it ; the blow caused his
death. The two next (Nos. 62 and 63) the learned judge de-
scribed as very serious cases : be gave a brief view of their na-
ture. He went through several other cases, of forgery, poison-
ing, shooting, kc., commenting upon them as he proceeded.
His address occupied an hour and twenty initiates in the de
livery.

11-1 E VERPOOL STANDARD