The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-24 00:00:00

personal act of his there had been gross negligence which had
caused death. In that case it was to be enferred that-there was
some defect in the °Hanle' plans, and that was the way they
got at Mr. Howell. That was, however, going a great way in
the construction of a tank to hold such an immense quantity
of water as that. The case which came nearest to that which
he could recollect was one tried some time ago, before the late
Mr. Baron Bayley, Mr. Baum Alderson and himself, at the
Central Criminal Court. It was a charge against a man for
causing the death of anotheiaby the bursting of a cannon. The
prisoner had suppliel several cannons to a party, one of which
turned out to be defective. It was returned to him, and the
defect pointed out. He returned it shortly after, and said it was
perfectly sound. This was, however, net true, for it appeared
he had merely coopel ed it up in a very defective manner. so
that when it was first tried it burst and killed a person. In that
case the cannon had been returned to the prisoner as defective,
and they (the Judges) held it was a case of manslaughter.
The Grand Jury, however, Halley were of opinion that there had
been gross negligence would probably say the case ought to
come before the pettit jury. He, however, confessed,
so far as he could judge, that it appeared merely to be a
difference of opinion as to the stays ; whether they were
properly placed and strong enough. and that could not be more,
if they were not, than an error in ju Igment. But, then, he (the
learned judge) did not know whether, upon the evamination of
the witnesses, it might not turn cut to be a s ronger case thin
it seemed to him upon the cursory view he had been able to
take of the depositions. The other case of manslaughter was
arising out of the bursting of a boiler at Bolton In that case it was
alleged that the boiler was not in a proper state of repair, and
that that part had been point d out to the accueed, as being so
for a very considerable length of time, and the parties who did
so wished that the boiler should not be used until it was put into
a proper state. He, however, insisted on its being used. They
asserted that the safety valves would not work, and they attri-
buted to him, not a knowledge that the safety valves would not
act, but that the boiler generally was in a very defective state,
and he (the Learned Judge) was not at all prepared to say that
it was n t a case of manslaughter. The boiler burst when Itt
was used, and several persons were destroyed, for every one of
of whom a separate indictment might be preferred, but probably
one case would be sufficient to raise the question. On the other
hand, it was said the occurrence was a mere accident that could
not be accounted for. If that should turn out to be so, of course
there was no reason for the charge. There were two very im-
portant ewes undoubtedly, not in the tale .dar, and to which
his Lordship thought it necessary to direct the attention of the
grand jury. His Lordship then proceeded to notice seven cases
of Bigamy. two of which were rather extraordinary, for it ap-
peared that a man and his wife had agreed to separate end each
get married again. This however, did not make it less a crime
according to law. In case No. 2it appeared that the first mar-
riage was never registe. ed, the parties having left
the church without going into the vestry for that purpose.
If, however, the marriage was proved to have taken place,
the crimes was complete. In No. 3, it appeared, the parties had
been separated for nearly 20 years, and his Lordship recom-
mended the grand jury to have some proof that the prisoner
knew of the existence of his former wife during seven years
previous to his second marriage before they found a true hill.
In another case, where the marriage took place at a Roman
• Catholic chapel, his Lordship recommended the grand jury to
ascertain whether the chapel was duly licensed, and observing
the t the marriage was proved by the Registrar, he ,:bsfr ved that
the only proof of marriage allowed by the act was a certificate,
with a seal of the Registrar. 1.. case No. 17, his Lordship drew
the attention of the Grand Jury to the circumstances attending
the dying declaration of the deceased, observing that, as it ap-
peared to be made in the presence of a magistrate, they would
probably receive it, although some of the witnesses said he did
not know what he was about. No. 19 was a charge of rape, of a
very extraordinary nature. No. 20 was a case of robbery, where
it appeared the prosecutrix had given the money to the prisoner,
but he had held her over some water, into which he threatened
to put her unless she gave him some money ; and, under those
circumstances, it was clearly as much a robbery as if it had
been taken from her by force. There was another case, one
of burglary, where the party had come down a chimney.
Now it had been held where a person entered a house in
the night time, down a chimney, that it was a burglary.
In the present case the party inside heard a noise in the chim-
ney, and on going to see what it was, saw the legs of the pri-
soner, on which he began to beat him. The prisoner forced
himself down, and a fight took place between them. Now he '
was curious to know what was the intent laid in the indictment.
It could not be supposed a man would go down a chimney for
the purpose of fighting. However, the Grand Jury would see.
His Lordship then called attention to No. 26, which was a
charge against a person for damaging five cwt. of cotton. That,
he supposed, was made under Act 7 and 3 Geo. IV., c. 30, which
made it an offence, maliciously damaging any goods in pro-
cess rf manufacture, but he could hardly see how that
law would apply, as the cotton was not in process of manufac-
ture. As to charge No. 50, which was for concealment of
birth, the medical man swore the child was born dead,
but the act absolutely prohibited any inquiry whatever as to
that. No. 51 was a case of conspiracy, in which his Lordship
recommended the Grand Jury to examine the witnesses rather
closely as to the circumstances attending it. He then alluded
to Nos. 52 and 53, charges of manslaughter by running' over
parties in the streets of this town. There was some evidence
in these cases that the parties were riding their carts with
reins, and going at a rapid pace; and although they called out
to the deceased, yet it would still be manslaughter. In case
No. 56, it appeared the party had died of erysipelas ; but if it
was brought on by the violence of the accused, he would still be
answerable. There was another case,
.that of two boys playing
together, when one struck the other without a word, and from
the effects of that blow, death ensued. That was extraordi-
nary, but probably there was some omission in the depositions.
If, however, the accused struck the deceased merely in play,
without intending any mischief, that would not be man-
slaughter. His lordship concluded his charge, which we have
been compelled to abridge for want of room, by saying that
should the grand jury require his advice in any other case, he
should be happy to afford it.
The grand jury then retired.
The names of the common jury were then called over
and several not answering to their names were fined £5
each. Some singular appeals were made to the !earned
judge to be excused serving. Ouse gentleman said he was
a widower with ten daughters, one of whom he feared was
about to form an improper connexion which he appre-
hended his presence at home might frustrate, but his
lordship refused to allow the excuse. Another said a
celebrated accoucheur had been in attendancse upon his
wife all night, and lie was in the hourly expectation of an
addition to his family. This appeal to the bench was gra-
ciously acceded to.