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

tf.kriSLAUG LITER.

. . John Skerratt. 3g, a labourer, of Mattchester, itas 'Char
with the manslaughter of Janet Grange, a lawyer, at Munches
ter, on the 11th of February last, by the furi‘ons driving of a
coach.
Mr. Pell appeared for the prbSectition, and Dr. Browne fot
the defendant. .
Joseph Hawksworfh deposed that he got upon the coacb
driven by Skerrett, which piled betwee'n Btiry. and Manchei:
ter, about a mile on this side of itury. There was eleven pet..
sons on the outside, and five inside, one of whom was the wit',
of the driver. lie described the coach as having proceeded .a•
a rapid rate, and the body of it swung so .much from side n
side that he was somewhat alarmed—the wife of the driver wa
ve' v much so. Shortly after the coach had 'descended Chee!
haul-hill, (a very slight descent,) it ufseti, and was dragged.
it lay sideways on the ground, a•consttlerable
space. He (11.'
serYeil the deceased, James Grange, among the tias3engers; ho
after the accident he did not take Tarticular. notice of him. A+.
onintbUs came up at the time; and those who lay on tha
were put into it. Several other witnesses Were called, one
whom deposed that the coach, though going at a pi-'tty rapt
pace, did no: exceed more than nine.ilides an hotir, and that t •
driver was perfectly sober though all declared that it swagged'.
or swayed about frOm_ side to side. Others deposed that 1.14
speed was from,l2 to 15 mites; the witness who computed th
speed at 15 miles, admitted that he was not ac6usfoineit to sue'
calculations: .
Henry Strgden Faw !lid coach Ilipscti and ran to the spot
when hd ea* Mr, Omelet lying: tin 'his ill:eV-tin the road

blood was streaming from his mouth and nose, and he appeared
totally insensible.
• Mr, Lomax, house-surgeon of_the jpfirmatry,--dt, Manchester,
deposed to receiving Mr. Grange on the Sundity evening 'be-
ta een eight and nine o'clock ; he died at four on the following
morning. The cause of death was fracture of the brain.
Dr. BitowN addressed the jury in defence of the prisoner.
The accident he attributed to some defect in the ciiat•h, of which,
as the prisoner was not the re.ular driver, he mast have been
ignorant. Besides, the evidence had not desfinctlt shown that
there was an, thing like furious driving ; on the contrary,
Entwistle, %‘ ho had suffered severely himself, and Sfill more
deeply in the pei sort of his son, had deposed that he had tie-
quently gone at a much quicker speed, and that he himself was
'not in 'the least alarmed. The fact, too, of the prisoner's wife
having been in the coach was a sufficient guarantee that cafe
had bee❑ taken by him driving.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
BIGAMY. . _ _

Joseph Bucksley was charger) with bigamy. It appeated from
the statement of the prisimet that he had had various dis4iree-
ments and temporary separations from his first wife; Susannah
Lord, who was continually desiring hint to go and reside with
her mother. To this he Would not for some time consent; but
though he did so at length, it did not lead tothe peace which he
anticipated. Ile accordingly left, telling his wife that, if she
was willing to live with him, he would take a house, but that
he could no more reside at her mother's. lie went one day to
he house of his wife's mother, on purpose to see his wife; but
they told him that he had nn occasion to come there any more,
as " Sarah" hail got married to another person. Ou hearing
this, the prisoner determined, as he said, to bring the affair to
a conclusion, and, to •''get shut altogether of his first wife."
married a young woman named Susannah Taylor, to whom he
distinctly related his situation, and she notwithstanding his
• previous marriage, consented to unite herself with him. He
was found guilty, and the learned Judge, previously' to passing
sentence, remarked that though the prisoner had acted under a
delusion in fancying that he could by any proceeding dissolve
the marriage with his first wife, yet, as he had not fed the second
wife into forming a connection with him by denying or conceal-
ing from her his previous marriage, his case might be looked
upon as less criminal. lie, however, stated, that from certifi-
cates which had been handed into the court, he found tbat the
prisoner's charges against his. wife were unfounded; she was
described as a:modest and irreproachable character in those
Certificates..' The prisoner was sentenced to two months' itn-r
prisonment and hard labour.
Daniel Holt, 26. of Ashton-under-Lyne, was charged with
having, while his first Wife was alive, married Elizabeth Robin-
son, at Oldham. Mr. Peel appeared for the prosecution, and
biiedy stated the case. Ellen Marsden nroved the fact of the
first inartiage with Frances Ellis, at Ashton. She was about
26. They -lived together about three or four months, and then
be went off
.to Liverpool. He returned and' lived with her two
;or three weeks, before.he finally abandoned her. Elizabeth
Robinson herself was examined. She deposed that she had
known the prisoner. .about. four years. She had heard that he
had another wife, but he denied the fact, saying that she had
died of fever of the brain. Told her so several times. She had
been married three .years on .the 1411 Sept. next. On the
morning of the marriage, she had been told that he had a wife
living; asked him, and he again denied it. She believed him.
About a year and seven mouths after the marriage, the first
wife came over; she lived with him a little while after that cir-
cumstance, and than left him. The child she had in her arms
was the prisoner's. Joseph Wiede, the deputy constable of
Oldham,; deposed to having arrested the prisoner on the 4th of
January. He told him trie.charge, and prisoner said it was
all nonsense. He afterwards told him where his first wife was
living—she was a servant in a public-house at Ashton-under-
The prisoner, who was a countryman, made rather a curious
defence he said, "Th' fist woife o' mine left me about three
months after I had wed her; and I Beet agate with this other.
I told her I was wed, and oo said on had been made a too on
once before, and oo would not have we. Well, I said, I caunt
help that; I wuz wed; but for a' that on kept following me,
and telling tne what no would do if I would nut wed her. One
morning oo met me when I was grming to work with William
Cross and two others, and on said if I would not have her, 00
would make away with herself before neet. So we went to a
public-house to Beet a glass of ale, and then Wm. Cross carne
back to see why I wur stopping. Why, says I, we're gooing to
have a wedding. Well, we went; and had a wedding; but Win.
Cross toad her I wur married before-hand."
The JUDGK said that the case was sufficiently clear. The
prisoner himself admitted the Net, but seemed to think he was
to escape all liability in consequence, as he declared, or having
made known to his second wife the fact of his previous mar-
riage. But whether he had done so or not, he was equally liable
to punishment for the offence.
The jury found him guilty, and lie was sentenced to 6 months
imprisoninent,. with hard labour.
Sarah ltroitn. 34, was indicted for having feloniously married •
one James Harticastle, at Rochdale, on the first October last,
her first husband, Edward Brown, being then alive. The pri-
soner pleaded guilty. She handed in a memorial to the court,
which having been read by the .learned Judge, he stated, that
if she In ought her mother to testify to what was therein con-
tained, it would certainly, affect the extent of her punishment.
William Seddon was indicted for bigamy. He had married,
on the 28th August last, Ellen Lofthouse, spinster, his first
wife, by whom he had three children, being alive. The prisoner
pleaded guilty; but stated, in extenuation, that his first wife
I had not behaved herself welltowarda him. He Was sentenced
to be imprisoned and kept to bard labour fur six calendar
months.