The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-14 00:00:00

POLYGAMY,

James Bell, aged 42, was indicted for having, at Eccles,
feloniously married one Jane Brown, his lawful wife, Rebecca
Wildgoose, being still alive. He was further charged with
having afterwards, at Eccles, feloniously married Lucy
111‘Guffaron, his former wife, Rebecca Wisildgoose, being still
alive.

Mr. Hutton conducted the case for the prosecution. The
prisoner was undefended. _

James Smiley stated that he apprehended the prisoner on
the 7th of May last. Ha told him that he was taking him for
having married three wives. He said it was not true; he
had only married two wives. Witness asked him if he had
not married a women of the name of Rebecca Wildgoose.
He said yes, but she was so bad and drunken a woman that
he had left her. He subsequently certified that he had mar-
ried Jane Brown, at Eccles, about ten years ago. Witness
produced certificates of both marriages.
Fanny Norris proved that she had seen the prisoner re-
turning from church after the marriage with Rebecca Wild-
goose had been solemnized. She also remembered the mar-
riage festivities. The prisoner examined ;this witness and
Smiley, touching the character of the first wife. It appeared
that she had been for nine years a prostitute., but Mrs. Norris
said she was a decent young woman when he married her.
The jury found the prisoner guilty under the first indict-
ment.

The prisoner was then tried for having married the third
wife, Lucy 111‘Gafferon.
Catherine Brookes statd that she went with the prisoner to
church when he was married to Lucy M'Gafferon. She was,
however, taken ill in the church, and did not witness the cere-
mony, but she was present at the marriage festivities.
A certificate of the third marriage was produced by Smiley,
and read by the Clerk of the Crown.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty under this indict-
ment also.

His Lordship ordered the prisoner to stand down, saying
he would consider the sentence.

POLYGAMY.

Joseph Smith, a respectable looking man, aged 65, habited
as a farmer, was placed at the bar charged with having, at
Bury, feloniously married Margaret Waters, his former wife,
Grace Barlow, being still alive.
Mr. 'WILKINS conducted the case for the prosecution.
The marriages were proved by certificates read to the
and by the testimony of the second wife.
The prisoner entered into a very long statement of the
grievances he had suffered through the misconduct of his first
wife, whom be described as a most drunken and dissolute
woman. He also mentioned the names of two women who
told him that she was dead.

His LORDSHIP directed that the prisoner should endeavour
to give him satisfactory proof of the truth of the latter state-
meut, for which purpose he would give him time. The pri-
soner was put back.

POLYGAMY.

Philip Peat, aged 35, was charged With having at Mottram
feloniously married Ann Armstrong, his fociner wife being
then living. He stood further charged with having at Man-
chester feloniously- married Sarah Lunn, his first wife being
then living.
. _

Mr. Brindt conducted the prosecution, and Dr. Brown
defended the prisoner.
The marriages under the first indictment were fully proved,
but Dr. BitowN, for the defence, endeavoured to show that
the first wife Liao been married before. The mother of
the first wife. Sarah Buckley, was called, and she acknow-
ledged that she remembered something of a marriage when
she was in Scotland, at Gretna. Mrs. Buckley showed that
her daughter had ,also married another person since she had
parted from the prisoner. The second wife was also married
aga in.
- His Lordship allowed Sarah Buckley. the first wife, to be
called by Dr. Brown. This was objected to by Mr. Brandt,
inasmuch as the witness stood in the relation of wife to the
prisoner.
His LORDSHIP said she might be called to show that she
was not his wife, that is, that she had been married before;
but might decline answering any question on the subject, as
the answer might probably criminate her as guilty of bigamy.
After some conversation, his to ship went and consulted
with Mr. Justice Williams. On ffis return, he said there
was a difficulty, inasmuch as before she could give evidence
it would be necessary 14 prove that she was a competent wit-
ness. He should, therefore, reject her testimony.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. BRA N T said that there was another indictment against
the prisoner. This affair was more complicated than it had
even at first appeared to be. If the first marriage were un-
lawful, it created a difficulty- with respect to this case also,
and they did not know how to lay the indictment.
His LORDSHIp said it had been stated by the prisoner that
he married the second wife under the impression that his first
marriage was illegal. It was evident, therefore, that he was
somehow guilty of bigamy. The indictment had, in conse-
quence, better be made two ways—stating both to be hist
lawful wife.

WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MAIM,

John 111`Gowan, a little ill-looking man, aged 25, was
charged with having, at Wardlewortb, cut and wounded Alice
Dodds. with intent to maim her.
Mr. Bit AN or conducted the prosecution.
The prosecutrix stated that she was the wife of John Dodds,
of Rochdale. On the '28.11 of June last, she went to the pri-
soner, who lodged with her, and asked him for sonic money.
She had asked him repeatedly before. He told her plainly
be would not give ber any, as she was so craving. She said
if he did not she would tie up the bed, for she could not afford
to find him" for nothing. lle went away into the corner
where he worked as a shoemaker, and on his return he made
a blow at her, exclaiming that he would cut her throat. She
threw up her arm, and a blow descended, and her arm was
severely eat; She exclaimed that she was killed. He said,
" No; -I've given you what will make you remember me for
a bit." She ran down stairs, leaving her husband in the room.
Her husband was not able to interfere, and she saw the pri-
soner strike him. When she got down stairs the prisoner at-
tempted to escape, but she held him.
The prisoner cross-examined the witness at considerable
length, but nothing material was elicited.
John Dodds, husband of the last witness, corroborated her
statements. He deposed that he was thrown down upon the
bed by the prisoner immediately after his wife "was struck."
Next day he examined bis coat and waistcoat, and found that
they were both cut.
Nancy Ryley stated that she beard Mrs. Dodds call out
murder, and she went into her apartment. The prisoner was
striking her. She was bleeding very profusely from the arm.
She fainted, and witness asked one of the lodgers to hold the
veins together till the doctor came. The prisoner passed
through the house,_ and she saw him pick up a knife and put
it in his pocket. He went upstairs. She went into the street,
and through the window she saw the prisoner take something
from his pocket and put it in the corner of the room.
Edward Diggle stated that he went with the last witness to
the assistance of Mrs. Dodds. He saw a shoemakers' knife
lying on the steps. The prisoner took up the knife. He
(witness) immediately sent for a doctor.
William Really, a constable of Rochdale, deposed that he
found a knife in a corner of the prisoner's room. Witness
produced a shoemakers' knife, which he said the prisoner had
claimed as his. There was much blood on the floor, both in
.the room, on the stairs, and below.
Mr. Lumen, -a surgeon, of Rochdale, stated that he was
called in to see Mrs. Dodds. He found a cut seven or eight
inches long, and about an inch and a half deep. The main
artery of the arm was divided, and, if assistance bad not been
rendered, she would have bled to death-in half an hour. He
tied up the artery, and sewed up the wound.
As there was a count in the indictment that the prisoner
committed the act with intent to do some grievous bodily
harm, the learned JUDGE said the jury had better confine
their attention to that. His LORDSHIP then went minutely
over the evidence, and left it to the jury to draw their own
conclusions.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence deferred'
WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO DO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM.

James Fiddler, aged 75, was-charged with having, at Den-
ton, wounded Joseph Buoth, with intent to du htm some
grievous bodily harm.
Dr. BROWNE conducted the case for the prosecution, and,
as the prisoner was stated to be a pauper, and was, moreover,
exceedingly deaf, at the suggestion of his Lordship Mr.
BRANDT kindly undertook his defence.

Joseph Booth stated that he resided at Denton. On Thurs-
day night, the 12th of July last, he was called out of his
house. He found the prisoner quarrelling with a person
named Harrison. The prisoner was very much enraged,
and he had a knife in his hand. Witness asked him if he were
going to kill somebody. They had been excellent friends,
and he (witness) wished to pacify him. The prisoner turned
upon him and stabbed him in the side.
A witness was called who corroborated the above state-
ment.

Mr. Cooke, a surgeon, described the nature of the injury,
which he at first considered dangerous. The wound was from
two inches to two inches and a half in depth.
James Harvey, who stated that he saw the whole transac-
tion, said the prisoner was much enraged, and he seemed to
be under the impression that Booth and Harrison were in-
tending to do him some grievous injury. The knife was pro-
duced by the constable. It was a sharp pointed knife.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with intent
to do grievous bodily harm.
The learned JUDGE passed sentence of one year's imprison-
ment.

The court adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRTDA Y.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLI/Ims.)
The business of this court commenced about half-past
eleven o'clock.

HALL V. OSBORNE.
The plaintiff in this case, who is an innkeeper in Li-
verpool, sought to recover the value of a saddle which
had been lett in the custody of the defendant, an inn-
keeper in Chester, in April, 1837, and had not been re-
turned. The action was braught.in this court on account of

the plaintiff living in Lancashire and the defendant in Ches-
ter, and being for that reason removed from the cognizance
of the iEferior courts.

Mr. CROMPTON appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. CRESS-,
WELL for the defendant. The case occupied some time, and
terminated in the plaintiff being nonsuited.

HARRUP V. CHATHAM.

This was an action to recover the sum of £32 I3s 4d, the
balance of a year's rent. The case was undefended. '
Verdict for the plaintiff.
HOLMES V. HOBSON.

This was an action to recover the value of a bill of ex-
change for £74 lOs.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
WEAVER V. JUNES.

The complainant in this case, Mrs. Susannah Weaver,
resides at (istvestrv, and the defendant, Mr. J. Jones, resides

•
parties were standing un George's pier, the defendant charged
the plaintiff with stealing a cloth basket cover, and she was
taken to Bridewell and there confined from Saturday night to
Monday morning, when no charge was brought against her;
and she was discharged in due course by the magistrates.
Meantime the defendant found the cloth cover which he alleged
the plaintiff had stolen. The action was brought to recover
compensation for this false imprisonment.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £l2.
DICKENSON V. PARKINSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff a woollen
manufacturer at Leeds, to recover the sum of £53. It ap-
peared that the defendant had been his clerk, and was sud-
denly dismissed his service, and, on making up his accounts
it was found that he was deficient in the amount sought to he
recovered, in his accounts. An arrangement for its payment
had been endeavoured to be made, but was not fulfilled, and
the action was accordingly brought for the recovery of the
amount.

Verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount.
WELLESBY V. SHARP.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attorney, at
Ormskirk, to recover the amount of his bill of costs, for con-
ducting a former action for the defendant.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £36 I7s Id.
LIDDLE V. LORD.

This was an action brought for the recovery 'of £l3O with
interest, money lent.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £lO7 10s.
HOLDSWORTH V. ANDREWS.

This was an action brought to recover the amount of a bill
of exchange.
Verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount EGO 103.
ASPINA IA V. MENDALL.

This was an action brought to recover £5B 17s 2d, the
amount of a dishonoured acceptance.
Verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount.
GROWGEY 2. FAIRCLOUGII.

. .
Mr. MunPur appeared for the platutni, and Mr. ALEX-
ANDER for the defence.

This was an action brought to recover damages for an as-
sa:ilt. • The circumstances of the case are these. In the
month of April last, the plaintiff, accompanied by Miss
Elizabeth Hughes, entered a public-house kept by Mrs. Pat-
terson, corner of Vine-street and Myrtle-street, as stated, to
avoid a shower of rain. They requested to be shown into a
private room, and were shown into a room in which was the
defendant lying asleep drunk on a bench. After they had been
there a short time the defendant started up, and insisted upon
having his "documents," and immediately knocked the plain-
tiff down with the leg of a tongs. The plaintiff had one or two
serious wounds and contusions inflicted on his head thereby,
and brought the present action to recover damages for the
assault.

➢liss Hughes was examined, and deposed to the assault;
that the defendant started .up without their having said a
word to him, and demanded his documents, and immediately
knocked Mr. Crowgey down.
His LORDSHIP asked what documents were meant? The
witness knew nothing of any documents but the Albion
newspaper.

Crins.-examined.---She did not ask the defendant what do-
cuments he meant. Would he (Mr. Alexander) if he had
found a man after him with a poker, have asked about docu-
ments? (Loud laughter.)
Mr. ALEXANDER.—That is rather a home question.
Mrs. Patterson, the landlady, was next examined, and
stated, that the defendant called next morning at her house,
and said he was much annoyed by what had happened, but
that his reason for doing it was, he had felt the woman's hand
in his pocket.
. _ _

Cross-examined.--Mr. Crowgey and Miss H ughes 'we re in
the habit of calling at her house about once a fortnight, and
were always shown into a private room. The plaintiff was
between 60 and 70 years of age, and the defendant was
about 40.

Mr. ALEXANDER for the defence said, there were actions
which were brought to put money into attorneys' pockets,
and not to afford recompence for injury to clients, otherwise
he should have thought it would have been for the plaintiff's
interest not to have had the case dragged before the public,
where it appeared, that an old man, with a young female,
were in the habit of going to a private room in a public-
house, where the assault in question had occurred. He said
the story about the defendant having felt the female's hand in
his pocket was but the dream of a drunken man; but most
likely he had felt her push him to ascertain if he was awake,
and he had jumped up with a different impression.
He called Mr, Peacock, the defendant's attorney, who de-
posed, that on the action being commenced against his client
he was instructed to settle it ; to pay all expenses, and to
express the sorrow of the defendant for what had °centred,
which offer he made to Mr. Dewhurst, the plaintiff's attorney,
but it was refused. Nfter the declaration was tiled, he again
made a similar offer, which was again refused. There was a
Borough Court in Liverpool, where such actions might be
tried at much less cost than at the assizes. The plaintiff's
attorney said the action should go on, the defendant should
he punished.

Cross-examined.—He made the offer of settlement to Mr.
Dewhurst, and never went to the plaintiff.
Mr. MURPHY replied.
His LORDSHIP summed up. He said a very serious assault
had been committed, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict. The amount of damages were for the considera-
tion of the jury. There was no extenuation in the defendant
being drunk; other than, perhaps, there was not so much
contumely in the injury, in the defendant not being in his
rational senses. He had endeavoured to ascertain if there
were any documents to give rise to the defendant's observa-
tion when he got up and committed the assault, but he could
not learn that there was anything more than the Albion
newspaper, and no one would take that for a document,
whether drunk or sober. (A laugh.)
The jury, after consulting together for some time, expressed
a wish $o retire; having bien absent an hour and a half, the
officer who had them in custody came into court and stated
that eleven had agreed, but that one still held out, and that
there was no chance of his agreeing. They were, of course,
given to understand that they must he unanimous. At a few
minutes to seven o'clock, the jury (having been absent nearly
three hours) returned, and gave in a verdict fur the plaintiff,
damages, 4Us.

CROWN COURT.—SATuann y
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
MANSLAUGHTER.

Joseph Rimmer, aged 20, was charged with having killed
Michael Newar, at Knowsley, by beatidg him and casting
him on the ground.
Mr. Brandt- conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Venables
the defence.

It appeared that on the 29th of July the prisoner was drunk
at a public-house at Knowsley, and had a quarrel with a man
named Burns, which ended in a fight. After they had fought
several rounds the deceased interfered, and after a few words
had passed, the prisoner struck him and knocked him down,
and he lay itt a state of insensibility, and was carried into a
barn. He snored very loudly, and it was concluded he was
asleep. He was left in the barn till next morning, when it
was discovered that he was dead.

The Learned JUDGE, after remarking that the case against
the prisoner was exceedingly slight, passed sentence upon
him for one week.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY.

John Lee; and Michael Burke. were indicted for having
at Ashton-under-Lyne feloniously assaulted Alfred Saxon,
and stolen from his person four sovereigns, one half-sovereign,
and a' gold watch, his property.
Mr. L. Peel conducted the prosecution, and Dr. Brown
the defence.

The prosecutor, Mr. Saxon, is a cotton spinner at Ashton-
under-Lyae. On the evening of the 4th of May last he was
at the Syd'amore public house, about half a mile from Ashton-
under-Lyne, where he had bought a horse from a Mr. Chad-
wick. He had a quantity of punch with a party of friends, and
left the house about six o'clock perfectly sober. When he
bad gone about a hundred yards he met four men, one of
whom he recognised as the prisoner Lees. He said ".good
day, gentlemen," and passed on One of them exclaimed,
"what the h—il art thou doing out at this time o' night, thou
little devil ?" Presently he heard some persons following him,
and his impression was that it was the party whom he had
wet. They came up with him, and he again recognised the
prisoner Lees. They then attacked him and rifled his pockets,
taking from him his gold watch and his purse. One of the
men kicked him two or three times ; they then left him. Ile
went immediately to the house of the manager of his factory,
and told bin► what had happened, mentioning the name of
Lees. Mr. Chadwick, cotton•spiuner, who was of the party
at the Sycamore, Mr. Nott, son to the landlady of the house,
and other persons, proved that the prisoners Lees and Burke
were at the Sycamore on the night in question, and were in
company with two other men. One of them was heard to
say, "by G—d, we'll nab either Shaw, Saxon, or Chadwick."
They were ultimately turned out of the house for quarrelling.
The constable of Ashton-under-Lyne deposed, that when he
went to apprehend Lees, he told him what he was taking him
for, and he replied, " I never touched him ; I did not lay a
finger upon him ; it was Burke who knocked him down."
Subsequently, when he had Burke in custody, the latter said,
" I did not touch him, (Saxon.) I only pushed him off the
sidestone."

For the defence Dr. BROWN urged that the conductof Lees
was not that of a man who had been guilty of robbery, as he
named the parties who had assisted to thrash Mr Saxon; and
the evidence against Burke to connect him with the robbery
was not conclusive.

Witnesses were called who gave the prisoners good charac-
ters.

The jury found the prisoner Lees guilty, and acquitted
Burke.
The sentence was deferred.
MANSLAUGHTER.

James Parrin, aged 39, a bailiff, was indicted for killing
Ralph Hough, at killing, on the 2nd of June last.
Mr. Grime appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins
for the defence.

It appeared that the deceased Ralph Hough lodged with
his brother-in-law, Joseph Potts, in Hulme, near Blanches-
ter; and Potts' goods having been seized by a bailiff in exe-
cut►on, some of Hough's goods were taken along with them;
Hough wanted this property restored, and went to the Kiug's
Arms tap-room in Back King-street, Manchester, where the
bailiffs had gone. The landlady ordered him out; an alter-
cation ensued, and the bailiffs commenced kicking Hough
and Potts, and told Hough that he should have bailiffs up at
his house next morning. One of the bailiffs kicked the de-
ceased on the pit of the stomach, and he immediately fell.
Hough's wife soon after arrived, and accused the bailiff with
having kicked her husband; and the ruffian threatened to
serve her in the same way, and immediately kicked her twice
on the stomach. The wife of the deceased swore positively
that the prisoner was the man who kicked the deceased.
The prisoner's counsel said this was a case which he felt
he could not get over.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and his lordship, after
commenting strongly on the brutal practice of kicking, com-
mon only in this county—a practice which he would do his
best to prevent—sentenced the prisoner to transportation for
life.

MANSLAUGHTER.

Bernard Hughes, aged 39, was indicted for killing and
slaying Thomas Sheran, on the 28th of June last.
Air. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Wilkins for the defence.

The circumstances of the case were these:—On the day of
the coronation the deceased went to the liquor-vaults of Mr.
Middleton, in Swan-street, Manchester, where the prisoner
also was. Immediately on his entering the place theprisoner
said, " That is the man who has been aid•du-camping all the
morning," and then knocked him down. He was carried
bleeding to the door, and then the prisoner was apprehensive
that he had done him some serious injury. The deceased
soon after died. The prisoner gave himself up on being
accused of killing the deceased, whose skull was found to be
fractured. •

The prisoner was found guilty, and his lordship, after ad-
vising him in future to restrain his passion, as be bad been
guilty of an act thereby which he would probably regret as
tong as be lived, sentenced him to be imprisoned one week.
BURGLARY NEAR BOLTON.
John Brown and Mary Wilson were indicted for having
burglariously broken into the dwelling-house of Mr. Abra-
ham Hopwood, at Moorgate, near Bolton, on-the 27th July.

It appeared that the prosecutor's house was broken into
on the night in question, by a pane of glass having been cut
out of the window, and a large quantity of wearing apparel
was stolen from the drawers. On the 30th of the same month,
l)iggles, the deputy-constable of Salford, saw the prisoner
Brown in Chapel-street, Salford. After watching him some
time, he saw the prisoner Wilson come out of a pawnbroker's
shop and join him, showing him a pawn-ticket; and Diggies
then took them into custody on suspicion, and found on them
the stolen wearing apparel in question.
Both prisoners were found guilty. The sentence was de-
ferred.