The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-03-28 00:00:00

CHARGE OF MURDER‘

John Jordan, on being called on to plead to the charge
of having wilfully murdered William Hair, stated that he
was unprovided with counsel, and requested the Court to
appoint him one. ,
His LORDSHIP said he had no power to appoint, but
no doubt some gentleman would undertake the duty.
Mr. Simons undertook the defence, and the case was
postponed till a later period of the day.

- -
MURDER IN LIVERPOOL.
Charles Flower was then charged with the wilful mur-
der of Michael. M`Dormott, in Dennison-street, on the
afternoon of Tuesdar, the 31st February last, about a
quaxter before five o'clock. Another count also charged
the prisoner with the manslaughter of the deceased.
The first witness called by Mr. BLAIR, who prose-
cuted, was
John Allan, seaman, a shipmate of deceased, who was in
Dennison-street, at the time stated in the indictment, and
saw the deceased, who was standing in the middle of the
street, with his cap lying on the ground, and he himself
was in a fighting attitude, The prisoner was also there,
and witness went up to the deceased and put his cap upon
his head, and took him away. The deceased was standing
up as if to fight with the prisoner. Deceased returned
again up the street, and the prisoner was standing
on the door-step of Parry's boarding house, where he
lived. The prisoner jumped off the door-step and struck
the deceased with his fist. Blows were given on both
sides, and the parties closed and struggled. Witness en-
deavoured to separate them ; but did not then see that
the prisoner had anything in his hand. The prisoner and
the deceased then got entangled, and remained so till de-
ceased fell down. After that, witness saw a knife in the
prisoner's hand, but did not observe where he had got it
from. The prisoner made a heavy thrust at the left groin
of the deceased, who almost immediately afterwards fell.
The people, of whom there was a great crowd round, en-
deavoured to secure the prisoner, but could not. Witness,
along with some others, picked the deceased up, and they
took him to the hospital. Witness saw the deceased dead
at the hospital, next day. [The knife was here produced :
it was a regular dagger, about eight inches long in the
blade, proportionably broad, and with a very sharp point,
which, for about three inches up, was two-edged. It had
a metallic ornamented handle, and a leather sheath.] The
weapon was identified by the witness as the one with
which he saw the prisoner strike at the deceased's left
groin.—On cross-examination the witness said a crowd
was round the prisoner and the deceased when they were
fighting ; and the deceased might have been struck by
' others besides the prisoner, and the prisoner was struck

by some of them. -
George Hall (who is now blind) lived in Mrs. Parry's on
the 31st January, and could then see well enough. He
knew both the deceased and the prisoner. Some time after
three o'clock, witness and the deceased went about half-
way up Dennison-street; witness went into Parry's, where
he lived, and the deceased went on. Shortly afterwards,
on coming out of the house, witness saw a crowd, and the
prisoner was in it, standing in the street, and deceased
was near him. They had been having a quarrel, and the
deceased was in a fighting attitude, and the prisoner was
standing on the path awl a few persons round him. Sen.

ral persons were endeavouring to take the prisoner away,
and witness assisted. The witness asked prisoner to go
home to his boarding house, which he said he would do,
and accompanied the witness. While the witness was
getting the prisoner away, no one interfered with him.
His face was swelled, and he appeared as if he had been
fighting, but witness did not see any blood upon his face.
Witness told the prisoner to go into the house and stay in.
He said he had a knife in the house, and that he would go
in and fetch it and cut the guts out of the first person
(using an opprobrious epithet) who came near him. The
prisoner went into his boarding house. Shortly after-
wards the witness again saw the prisoner in a great crowd
with a knife in his hand. The prisoner, was going back-
wards from the crowd, and they were *rushing on him.
Witness saw a man named Wallace trying to get the
knife. Witness did not then see the deceased at all.
Witness came behind the prisoner and caught him round
over the arms. Witness endeavoured to throw the pri-
soner, and they both fell.
Other witnesses corroborated the leading features of the
previously given evidence.
Mr. BRETT, for the defence, contended that the pri-
soner was ill-used to such an extent as to justify, in a great
degree, the utmost efforts for his own defence, or to such
an extent, at least, as to remove the charge of murder, if
it not indeed to obviate even the minor charge of man-
slaughter. He called
James Thomas, shipping-office clerk, who knew deceased
by the name of Billy Jones. Saw a riot about mid-day on
the 31st of January ; there was another in the afternoon,
between three and four o'clock, at which there was con-
siderable noise. The deceased was in the crowd, standing
in the street. Witness saw the deceased turn round to
the prisoner, and addressing some foul language to him,
said, " What are you looking at ?" at the same time
seizing the prisoner by the hair with his left hand, and
striking him in the face with his right. The description
given of the subsequent riot and fight, in which deceased
lost his life, by this witness, did not differ greatly from
what had been previously given ; but he was positive the
prisoner did not use the language attributed to him by
the witness Hall. The witness was not certain the pri-
soner did not say something which he
,(the witness) did
not recollect.
Two other witnesses were called and examined for the
defence. After wthich, Mr. Blair contended that the pallia-
tion intended to be set up had not been made out.

His lordship summed up, prefacing his observations by
pointing out the distinctions which separate charges of
murder from those of manslaughter. He dwelt at consi-
derable length upon the peculiar features presented by the.
evidence, and remarked on the expression of the prisoner
sworn to by Hall. If the jury were of opinion that the
prisoner had had time to cool down from the excitement
caused by the ill-usage he had received, before he used
the expression, or went into the house for the purpose of
obtaining a weapon and inflicting a wound, which pro-
duced the fatal consequences with which he was charged,
then that would be murder ; if, however, they were of
opinion that he was still labouring under the excitement,
and that the expression had been used with a general
reference, the case would be manslaughter. He com-
mented at great length on the particulars of the evidence,
and left it to the jury to say, whether the prisoner's use
of the knife was such as to justify them in finding a
verdict of murder or one of manslaughter.
The jury having considered for a few minutes, returned
a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. Sentence deferred.
MURDER ON BOARD A STEAMER.
John Jordan, steward of the steamer Trafalgar, was
next placed in the dock, charged with having, on the night
of the 14th March, on board the above-named ship, then
lying in the Sandon Dock, murdered William Hare, a lad
aged about 14, who acted as assistant steward. From the
evidence, it appeared that on the night in question, about
half-past eleven o'clock, the watchman on duty at, the Sau-
don Graving Dock heard a noise, which was differently
described by the different witnesses, as being like the fall-
ing of a door ; like the sudden shutting of a door, with a
rushing towards it, accompanied by footsteps ; and as the
sound of some one falling into the hold. On the watch-
man and others going on board they discovered the body
of the deceased lying on the deck, and quite dead, with
his head between the fore and hind wheel of a gun, with a
small pool of blOod under his head, and his legs stretched
out straight from the body, one leg crossed, over the other.
Deceased had a wound over his left eye, from which blood
had flowed, but which had not flowed over his right eye-
brow. It further appeared that the deceased was the son
of the cook of the Trafalgar, and had last been seen. alive
about a quarter before ten o'clock. On raising an alarm
the prisoner was with difficulty aroused, and he seeraed.in
a state of stupefaction from the effects of drink. On being
apprised that deceased had been found dead on the deck,
he made some singular and. :incoherent remarks, and,
taking the deceased's head between his hands,said in a wild
sort of manner, " 0, Billy ! 0, Billy !" and went dawn
stairs into the cabin. The body of the deceased was taken
to the Northern Hospital. On. a post mortem examina-
tion, it was found that the deceased had an extensive frac-
ture of the skull, accompanied by laceration of the brain,
at the back: of the head exactly opposite to the wound
above the eye, which the medical gentleman who con-
ducted the post mortem examination stated to have
been the immediate cause of death. He also said
the fracture was covered by a contused wound, and that
the injuries might have been produced by a blow, or by a
fall. The injury to the brain was accompanied by effusion
on the brain, which is frequently an accompaniment of
apoplexy. H'e further stated, that if the injury had been
caused by a fall, the deceased might have struggled in.an
unconscious state for a yard or more from the spot where
he had fallen. A great number of witnesses were exa-
mined for the prosecution, but they offered no evidence
which showed in any direct way a connexion between the
prisoner and any circumstances attending the death of the
deceased. After a trial, which lasted between three and
four hours, his lordship stated to the jury, that the evi-
dence laid before them was not of a sufficiently conclusive
character to warrant them in convicting on so serious a
charge. A verdict of acquittal was recorded.