The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-06 00:00:00

board, the jury would find, that some of the Robert's crew
eta ted, that they had seen the Hunter before the collision.
The jury should hear their account of the accident. It was
this : that they saw the Hunter kept the wind, that they tried
to luff, and they did luff. So far they were right : the Hunter
was upon the larboard tack, the Robert upon the starboard :
therefore, they had a right to luff. But instead of continuing
to do so, the captain of the Robert bore up, and allowed the
vessel to fall off the wind about four points ; that, again,
thinking he had done wrong, he put the helm down, which
brought the vessel so near that the starboard bow of the Ro-
bert came in contact with the starboard bow of the Hunter.
The jury would find, from the man who was steering the Ro•
bert, that, if the master had not taken the helm, the accident
could not have happened. Under these circumstances, the
present action was brought to recover compensation for the
loss of the plaintiff 's vessel.
The learned counsel then called Thomas Smithson, cap-
tain of the Hunter, and Adam Sinclair, mate, Edward Cou-
sins, the seaman alluded to, and the captain of the Halifax,
who confirmed his statement of the facts.

Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury on the part of the de-
fendant. He said he should be able to show that the accident
had been caused by the Hunter. The helm of the Robert
was never out of the hands of the captain till after the acci-
dent had occurred, and all her crew were upon the look out,
whilst on the Hunter there was but one, for it would be re-
collected that the captain was below, another man was at tea,
the third was gone to see what o'clock it was, and the fourth
was at the helm. There was, consequently, uo one upon the
look out, as there ought to have been. When the vessel
approached, the Robert hailed the Hunter and received no
answer. He should also be able to show, that the Hunter
might have altered her course three or four points, and yet
have been before the wind, had she been disposed, and that
she must have seen the Robert if a proper look out had been
kept. He would ask the jury, whether a vessel, under such
circumstances, could claim for damage ? He should further
show, that the Robert was sailing only at the rate of two and
a half knots per hour, whilst the Hunter was going at eight,
so that it was ridiculous to talk of the collision having pro-
ceeded from the Robert ; and further, that a considerable
portion of the Hunter was burnt. He should call those who
would prove, that a blanket had been on fire in the forecastle ;
that parts of the ship took fire in consequence; that part of
the mast was burned ; and that the vessel floated for six hours
after the collision, whilst the Robert sunk immediately.
Thirteen witnesses were then called, whose evidence sup-
ported this view of the case.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant. The damages
had been laid at £750. The trial lasted the whole day.
The court rose about six o'clock.

CROWN COURT—MONDAY.
MURDER BY TURN-OUT SAWYERS AT ASIITON.
John Hulme, 31, and John Williams, 30, were indicted
for the wilful murder of Ben. Cooper, jun.. at Ashton-under-
Lyne, on the llth of December last.
Mr. Sergeant Ateherley, Mr. Brandt, and Mr. Wortley,
appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. 'Wilkins and Mr. Over-
end for the prisoners.
The indictment was of great length, and consisted of four
counts. The first count charged them, with having, of malice
aforethought, assaulted one Benjamin Cooper, a sawyer, and
that Hulme, with a certain metal pipe, plugged at one end,
with lead and wood,
and made to serve the purpose of a can-
non, then and there
charged with gunpowder, and charged
with twenty bullets or slugs, discharged them at and
agaiB Benjamin Cooper, of which lie died instantly. The
other counts varied the charge.
Both the prisoners pleaded not guilty.
111 r. Sergeant ATclituLEY then proceeded to state the
Cae. The jury had heard from the officer of the court, that
this was an indictment which imputed to the two prisoners at
the bar, the crime of murder.
Mr. WiLxiNs here begged his lordship to order all the
witnesses on both sides out of court.
The J DGE.—Certainly.
Mr. Sergeant ATC FIERLEY also requested that an officer
should be appointed to take charge of them.
Mr. WILKINs.—Your lordship will pardon me if I invite
Your attention to the opening of the Attorney-General. If
it is what I anticipate, I shall be obliged to raise some objec-
tions.

Mr. Sergeant ATCHEItLEY said that the witnesses being
withdrawn, he could proceed. He was stating that the con-
sideration of this being a charge of murder, involving a ques-
tion of considerable importance to the public on the one hand,
and of the last importance to the two prisoners at the bar on
the other, was sufficient to bespeak their calm and serious at-
tention to the facts of the case, which he meant to open
with as much brevity and simplicity as lay in his power. The
person whose death formed the subject of the present enquiry
was a man named Benjamin Cooper. The day upon which
the transaction occurred was the 11th of December last, and
the place was the town of Ashton-under-Lune. In Ashton-
under-Lyne, he understood, there was a considerable traffic
in the building and sawing business, and a considerable num-
ber of hands were employed in it. About the month of Oc-
tober last the prices which had been paid for labour to work-
ing sawyers in the town of Ashton had been higher than those
paid to the same sawyers in the town of Manchester. The
master sawyers thought proper, whether rightly or not did
not signify to day, to reduce the prices which they had before
been in the habit of paying, in order that they might be able
to compete with their rivals in trade in the adjoining town of
Manchester. Notice was given that from and after that day,
sth of October, the reduced prices would alone be paid. This
notice naturally begot considerable dissatisfaction on the part
of the working sawyers in the town of Ashton ; they did not
enter into the feelings of the masters, who had to compare
their means with those of the master sawyers of Manchester,
the working sawyers only considering the diminution in the
wages which they had been in the habit of receiving for them-
selves and their families. This dissatisfaction produced what
was commonly called a " strike" or "turnout." He meant
to go over this part of the case as shortly as possible, because
it was only material, on the present occasion, in so far as it
supplied the motive for the deed which formed the subject of
this enquiry. A man named Whitfield, he understood, was
a considerable sawyer in the town of Ashton, and, he believed,
a builder too, and he employed several hands. Some of his
workmen turned out, or " struck," on account of the reduc-
tion of wages ; and Mr. "Whitfield was forced to apply else-
where to endeavour to obtain hands, who should take the
place of some of the men who had struck and ceased to work
for him. Two men were obtained. One of them was named
Benjamin Cooper, the deceased, about whom they were about
to enquire, and the other was James Cooper, his brother,
who would be a witness to-day. These men worked in Whit-
field's yard. In the yard there was a sawpit. That pit was
partially concealed by a sort of boarding intervening between
the road and the place where the men were working, probably
for the purp of making it more warm for the men to work
in. Here he would mention at once that he proposed to give
in evidence certain
attempts
liellth of December--
Mr. WILKINS said,
by the prisoners at the bar upon
days antecedent to the
case, takeubl
eh, i
for
srh objection.
the trouble, Sergeant A
would then, in this stage of the
TCHERLEY would save his learned friend
e would not state the facts referred to, but
would offer them in evidence. Whatever might be his own
opinion with regard to the admissibility of that evidence, he
would not statea
single fact, but reserve to himself the right
of proving it, under the direction of the learned judge, when
the proper time should have arrived. He came then to the
11th December. About
sixo'clock
the
evening.
in
of that
day, probably the •
jury might be of opinion it was a little
two Coopers were working at the sawpit in
question. Here he thought it right to state, if anything
turned upon the exact or precise point of time, that any person
who was at all practised in a court of justice must be aware
that no great faith or dependence was to be placed upon the
accuracy of different country clocks. It was only just to-
wards the case for the prisoners, to remark, that no depend-
ence could safely be placed upon the accuracy and conformity
of country clocks. Even with regard to public clocks, factory
clocks, and church clocks, for instance, within the distance
of a mile, there might be a difference of five or ten minutes,
so that upon the matter of clocks he placed no dependence
whatever. However, somewhere about six o'clock, these
two men were engaged in their labour. Benjamin Cooper
was the top sawyer, and he had a lantern attached to his knee,
or near his knee, which would, therefore, make him an ob-
ject clearly to be seen. His brother James was the man in
the pit. Suddenly a great report or explosion was heard.
Benjamin Cooper immediately called out for help. He (the
learned counsel) forgot who first went to him; but the un-
fortunate man was found to be much injured. He reeled ;
and he was afterwards conveyed to some distance, upon a
board or shutter. Two surgeons were called in. He was
told his situation, and he exclaimed, " What will become of
my wife and children ?" or some language of that sort; also
some expressions strongly indicative of pain, such as, " Will
nobody, for God's sake, stab me ?" or some phrase of that
sor. He remained in that state till eight o'clock the same
evening, when he died. Upon examining his person it was
found that different slugs had entered his body. One, lie
thought, but he did not charge himself with accuracy in this
matter, had entered the liver, another had penetrated the
spine, and a third was lodged somewhere near the hip.
Of course an alarm was given, and different persons were
taken into custody, and among others a man named Davies,
who would be examined to-day. On the following morning
a pipe—a sort of metal pipe—was found ; and he apprehended
there would be no doubt whatever that the prisoners were the
persons that used that pipe, and that it was the instrument
which caused the death. It was a large metal pipe, plugged
at one end, capable of holding a considerable number of
slugs, and a considerable quantity of powder, with a touch-
hole which had been drilled for the purpose of communi-
cating with some train, which, when ignited, would set fire to
the pipe. Slugs, or marks of them, were found in the board-
ing before described as being; a screen or shed which pro-
tected the workmen from the weather. He had mentioned
that a man named Edward Davies was apprehended upon the
charge. He was an accomplice who was this day to tell the
jury the history of this transaction. In this part of the case
let him (the learned counsel) tell the jury two things. In
the first place, though an accomplice was in point of law a
competent witness, and a jury might, if they thought proper,
act upon his evidence, yet in point of practice, and in
point of just and sound reasoning, it was never right to de-
pend upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless he re-
ceived with regard to his story, from other quarters, a con-
firmation which should erect his credit, and entitle him to
the faith of the jury. But there was another remark which
he wished not to omit in this place—namely, that when the
accomplice first gave the account of his having a knowledge
of the transaction, he did not then state the whole of that
which he was about to state to-day. According to the best
information he had, and from the best attention he had been
able to bestow upon the case, he (the accomplice) stated
nothing at all inconsistent with that which to-day he was
about to disclose. But, for certain reasons, as to which the
jury would have the duty of inquiring, he certainly did not
state all then which he had subsequently stated. He had
thought it necessary to premise these remarks with regard to
the which this man would appear before the
question then would be, whether or no he should
eourts. ituTatnioen in
be confirmed to the satisfaction of the jury, by other evi-
dence. With regard to that he (the learned council) did not
on the present occasion mean to enter into minute de-
tails of the smaller concurring circumstances which were
to be urged upon the part of the prosecution as being
confirmations of the accomplice, lest he should do an injury.
He would merely state that that confirmation arose from pre-
vious concert, which he intended to deduce, between the two
parties charged, from their own observations and accounts of
themselves after the transaction, from the explanations they
had chosen to give, from the declarations they had made to
havig een seen in th
different parties, and
neighbourhood of the spfrontinsho their
rtlytalafternthfaantat nitdeendpeon tccui re
i-
red. He had begun with stating that he me b e
case as shortly as be was able. All. he had to do was to en-
deavour to furnish to the minds of thee juryshonld, therefore,asortofinde say
xtoy
the evidence about to be adduced. H
no more at present than this—that if in the result they should
entertain any reasonable and honest doubt with regard to the
guilt of the two prisoners, whatever might be the
horrorthey werebe-
longing to the deed which had been committed,
honest
entitled to the full benefit of such reasonable and
to
doubt; but, again, if they should see any reason
distin-
guish between the cases of the two prisoners,and
of opinion that with regard to one of them only the
evidence
be
of the accomplice was plainly confirmed, and with
suchreg ardto
the other insufficient, they would, of course, make
dis-
tinction. But if, after a long trial—for he feared it musthonest
be
such—they should in the result feel no reasonable or
doubt with regard to the guilt of the two men—in that case,
however painful it might be, they must discharge their duty.
The learned counsel then proceeded to call witnesses.
James Cooper was the first witness ; he was examined by
Mr. BRA.NDT. He said he was a sawyer, in the employment
of Mr. Whitfield, and was one of the new hands who came
in the place of those who turned out. His companion was
Benjamin Cooper, who was the top sawyer. [A model
was here produced in court, and the witness pointed out
the place where he and the deceased were working at the
time.l He knew the prisoner Williams by sight, and on the