The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-03-21 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES.

Mx Spring Assizes for the southern division of this
county commenced yesterday, before. Mr. Baron Platt and
Mr. Justice Cresswell, at St. Georges Hall. The calendar
Contains the names of 100 prisoners.
Mr. Baron Platt arrived at the Lime-street Station of
the London and Northwestern Railway soon after four
o'clock on Saturday afternoon. The High-sheriff, Mr.
Richard Fort, of Read-hall, in this county, attended by
his chaplain, the Rev. Samuel King, were in waiting with
an elegant equipage, drawn by four handsome bays, and
attended by the usual complement of javelin men, in sub-
stantial' livery. The Mayor (Mr. J. B. Lloyd,) in his state
carriage, was awaiting the arrival of the learned baron.
His lordship proceeded in the first instance to the Judges'
lodgings, in St. Anne-street, and thence-to St. George's
Hall, where the commission was opened in the Nisi Prius
Court. Notibe was then given that business would be
commenced on Monday morning in the Criminal Court at
eleven, and in the Nisi Prius Court at twelve o'clock.
Mr. Justice Cresswell, who had been detained by the two
concluding cases in the Civil Court at York, did not arrive
until ten o'clock on Saturday night.
On Sunday their lordships and the high sheriff attended
divine service at St. George's Church, prayers being read
by the Rev. J. B. Monk, M.A., incumbent,.and the sermon
being delivered by the sheriff's chaplain, from Isaiah xxxiii.
v. 6 :—" WisdOm and knowledge shall be the stability of
the times, and-the strength of salvation the fear of the
Lord is his treasure." The Mayor and a number of ma-
gistrates, withthe officials bearing the Corporationinsignia,
walked in-procession to and from the church.

CROWN COURT Y ESTERDA.Y.
(BEFORE ME. JUSTICE CRESSWELL.)

His LOILDSUP took his seat at eleven o'clock ; and the
Court having been opened with the usual formalities, and
the proclamation against vice and immorality read, the
following gentlemen were sworn on

THE GRAND JURY
William Earle, Itsq., Spekelands, Foreman ;
Samuel Ashton, Esq., Prestwich ;
James Bourne, Esq., Heathfield-houses.
Wm. Hill Brancker, Esq., Greenfield;.
Joseph Ewart, Esq., Liverpool ;
Thomas Fairhairn, Esq., Northwood
Robertson Gladstone, Esq., Highfield.v.
Alex. Few en Haliburton, Esq., Whitley;
Thomas Hilton, Esq., Manchester;.
Robert Horsfall, Esq., Mere Bank;,
James-Kay, jun., Esq., Turton Tower;,
John Robinson Kay, Esq., Bass-lane House;
John Buck Lloyd, Encl., Mayor Of LiVerpool;
Duncan McViccar, Esq., Liverpool;:
Thomas C. C. Marsh, Esq., Ashy Hall;
John,Myers, Esq., Crosby House ;
Peter Ormerod, Esq., Chamber Hall ;,
Robert Needham Philips, Esq., The Park;
William Rotheram, Esq., Sandheys ;.
William Rathbone, Liverpool;
William Edwards Royds, Esq.,.Greenhill ;
Edward Tootal, Esq., The Weaste;.,
Charles Turner, Esq., Dingle Heed.
Mr;.Jitstice CRESSWELL then deliveredhis charge to the
Grand Airy. He was sorry, he said, that he could not
congratulate them upon the stateof the calendar which
they had to deal with that morning. They would not be
surprised that he said so, when,he told them that there
were 14 charges of robbery by several persons together,
with considerable violence; 18, cases of burglary, 13 of
stabbing, seven of manslaughter, and two of murder—not
to mention other cases of feaudand,violence. It might
be• matter of surprise to some• that they should have
crimes of that description, and,to such an extent, when
the-material condition of the people has been so prosper-
ous. He said this especiall in reference to the charges of
robbery and burglary,—but to those who had had much
experience of courts of justice, that would not be matter of
surprise, because he believed that those who perpetrate
robberies of that description, and commit burglaries, were
a class of people who would not avail themselves of the
opportunity of working, even for considerable wages ; they
preferred a dissolute and reckless life. With regard to
stabbing, the same observation would hardly apply, as they
would find that-that and charges of manslaughter arose
principally out of that fatal habit of drunkenness which
prevails in this as mother countries. That was ascribable,
in a great degree, to.the ignorance of the people, and the,
want of religious and:moral training in the early part of
their lives ; for, looking at that calendar they could net
but be struck with. the dense ignorance in which most of
those people seemed.to be involved, He said that not in
reproach to this. part of the country, for he had reason, to,
think that a great part of those crimes were committed
by those who. were not born here, and, probably, did
not come into. this part of the country till they had
arrived at an agewhen they could not avail themselves. of
that education of which they had been deprived in past.
life. There were one or two cases to which he. would
refer, rather in extenuation of the charges in the calendar
than in aggravation of them. There was, however, one
in which he advised that a more serious charge should be
made than that stated in the calendar. It was No. 50, a
case in which a person was charged with, wounding a
woman named Boon, with intent, it was said, to do her
grievous, bodily harm. But they could not suppose that
such injuries could be inflicted with any other object than
killing; and, as there was nothing to reduce it below
murder if the woman had died, he thought the charge
should be "intent to murder." There were, then, two or
three cases of manslaughter, where death had occurred
from parties fighting in a public-house ; when drink had
aroused their passions and obscured their-reason, they had
fought, and the result had been the death of one or other
of the parties. There was a charge against four men,
Nos.. 80 to 83 in the calendar, of manslaughter ; and
he could not help thinking that, at the inquisition held
by the coroner, the verdict of manslaughter must have
been given under some misapprehension of the law.
Those parties appeared to have been out poaching by
night, no doubt an unlawful proceeding. During that
sport of theirs they had to cross a broad ditch. One got
in. Another was helping him out, when his gun went
off, by accident, and killed this man. No doubt it was
as pure an accident as ever could happen, but the coroner's
jury hatrreturned a verdict of manslaughter against the
whole of the party. Now he held that that arose from a
misapprehension of the law. The law was : " If a person.
doing an unlawful act, though not intending bodil
harm to any one, as throwing a stone at anther's horse,
and it hit a person and kill him, that is manslaughter."
And so here the coroner's jury might imagine that as they
were out poaching, if that man was killed, it was neces-
sarily manslaughter. If one had been firing at a pheasant
and killed his comrade, perhaps it would have been so;
but there the act was wilfully done ; here it was pure acci-
dent, and in that case he should certainly, unless there
was very different evidence from that which came before
the coroner's jury, reject the bill. There was another
charge of manslaughter, No. 93, against a man for driving
a cart over a child; and if a man doing a lawful act, such
as driving a cart, did it in a reckless manner, he was cri-
minally responsible for the death of any one, Perhaps
they would be able to judge from the evidence whether
there was that degree of negligence which would be cri-
minal, for he collected from the depositions that the man
saw the child and endeavoured to avoid it, but he was not
soon enough in doing that, or doing it effectually, and the
child was killed. That might be an error of judgment,
but they could hardly call that criminal negligence which
would justify a charge of manslaughter. There was then
a charge, No. 77, against a person named Flower, for mur-
der. Now this appeared one of those unhappy cases, not
unknown in this town, of sailors using knives. He col-
lected from the depositions that there was some fight or
quarrel in the street. They were then separated, and the
two parties were taken in different directions ; but the de-
ceased man afterwards, with one or two comrades, passed
the door of the house where the prisoner was taken, when
he rushed out, renewed the fight, and in the course of it
gave him a mortal wound. Now, if two persons fought,
and one of them in the course of it used a knife, that was
manslaughter; but if a man armed himself and then
entered into a fight, and they were of opinion that he had
a preconceived intention to use it, then it would be
murder, though blows were interchanged between them
Now, here there was reason to believe that the man
brought the knife out with the intention of using it, but
there had been a previous fight ; and if they (the grand
jury) thought that it was so recent that there had not
been time to cool, then they could suppose that he had
obtained the knife during that struggle, and it would be
manslaughter, not murder, as the coroner's jury had
returned. There was a charge of murder against a person
named Jordan, a ship's steward ; and he could not help
feeling surprised that such a verdict should have beet;

returned by a coroner's jury upon the evidence that was
before them. For, from the depositions, the evidence
before them simply came to this. A noise was heard at
night at one of the docks,—a policeman heard a sound
like a door falling—another policeman like a body falling ;
they went on board a ship, and found a boy all but dead.
He had received a slight wound at the front of the head,
and on a post mortem examination his skull was found to
be fractured. On searching about the deck, they found
nobody there, but they found two men in the forecastle
asleep. They asked if there was any one else on board.
They said yes, the steward must be about the ship ; and
they found the steward lying on the cabin floor, very
drunk. There was no other circumstance to arouse sus-
picion against him, but they found him guilty of murder.
It seemed very strange ; but whether any depositions
were omitted, would turn • out before them (the
grand jury.) If the facts were according to that
statement, of course it would be preposterous to make
a charge of murder against a man on such evi-
dence as that. There were two cases to which he must
shortly draw their attention. One from 73 to 75 in the
calendar, was an outrageous outrage indeed by several
persons upon a female. Probably they might find that
her life was not a reputable one, but that was not an excuse
for an offence of that description. No. 85 was one of the
same class of cases, but he begged their attention to the
evidence which would be detailed before them, to see if
there was sufficient ground for a public investigation in
such a case before they found a bill. The only other case
he would mention was against two persons, Nos. 97 and 98,
for being concerned in a riot at Preston, and he could not
help deeply regretting that any of the persons in Preston
should at last haveforfeited that singularly good character
they had preserved during the long and unhappy differ-
ences between the masters and labourers. He had cer-
tainly been struck with the remarkably orderly demeanour
exhibited during the whole of that unhappy contest. But
it appeared at last that some persons from a foreign
district were introduced to supply the places of those who
refused to work for the wages offered; a riot took place,
and those two prisoners were charged with the riot. Now
the operatives should know and remember that while they
arrogated to themselves the right to work for certain
wages, at least they should grant the same privilege to
others, and others should be- permitted to work for such
wages as they chose to accept- There was a sort of one-
sided liberality about the contrary course which, was not
to be endured. They should remember that they were fel-
low-subjects, were free as themselves, and that if by acts
of violence they endeavoured to deter others from working
that would work, they must expect the law to interpose.
These were the only cases which he should trouble them
with remarks upon, and he felt sureit was unnecessary to
go further, from the respectable assemblage that he had
thehonour of seeing before him.
The grand jury then retired, and. shortly afterwards
returned into court with several true- bills. The trials
them proeeeded.
Srunnr ROBBERY AT MA.NCIIESTER.--RiChard Preto,
aged 21, described as a labourer, was indicted for having,
at Manchester, assaulted and robbed John' Buckley of 24e.
Mr. Milne prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended.
It appeared that the prosecutor, who is au engineer, went
to the George and Dragon Inn, in Hulme, Ma,nchester,
about twelve- o'clock on the night of the 17th December.
He there met the prisoner, whom he had known before;
and they had something to drink together. When they
came out they went together to another public-house,
where they had more drink. There were several people
there who left before the prosecutor. On his coming out,
after he hadgone a little way, he was seized from-behind
and his chin "chucked up" by three or four men, when
one of them, whom he positively identified as the-prisoner,
came before him and ripped up his trowsers, getting the
money stated out of his rule pocket. Before going-to the
latter house, the prisoner had become aware that the pro-
secutor had his money in that pocket, as he had advised
him to put it where it would be safe." When arrested.
next morning the prisoner admitted to the policeman that
he was a witness-of the robbery, but denied any participa-
tion in it. His lordship having summed up the evidence,
the jury, after a moment's consultation, returned aver
diet of Guilty. Sentence deferred.
GAROTTE ROBBERY IN LIVERPOOL—John Joyce,
aged 21, described as a labourer, was indicted for having.
assaulted Robert Spencer, and robbed him of 9s. 6d.,,a
knife, and a tobacco-box. Mr. Raffles prosecuted. The
prosecutor is a plumber, living at the Old Swan. On
the night of the- 24th December, a Saturday night, he
was in Liverpool with a friend. They had something to
drink together in Dale-street. They were passing the
Queen's Hotel, Lime-street, about one o'clock in the.
morning, when he lost sight of his friend. He thought
that he saw him, going up Gloucester-street. He met
two women, and, in consequence of what they said, he
went up the street.. They followed, and, whilst he was.
talking to them, the prisoner came up, and asked him,
what he was doing ? He said that he was looking for
his friend, and asked the prisoner to go up an entry,.
which the women had pointed out, and look for him._
The prisoner told: him to do so himself. He then felt
something twined: about his neck, and turned round,.
when he saw the prisoner, who was almost strangling him..
He was rendered almost insensible, and while the prisoner-
held him, the two women rifled his pockets. The prisoner
asked, " have you: got all ?" when they said, "yes," and.
the parties all ran away. He recovered soon after, and
missed from his- pocket the money stated.—Verdict,
Guilty. A previous conviction against the prisoner, who
had then gone under the name of Pierrepont, was proved..
Sentence deferred.

ANOTHER RORBERY AT MANCHESTER.—Geo. Stowe,
aged 22, Dennis. Bennett, 18, and Win. Redden, 22, all
factory operatives, were charged with having, at Man-
chester, assaulted John Henry Ertkamp, and robbed lbw.
of Os., a handkerchief, and his hat. The prosecutor is a
warehouseman.at Manchester, and on the night of the4tb
of February went to the theatre. After that, he went to
two or three public houses, and was going home about two,
o'clock in the morning. He had 95.. in his waistcoat pocket,
a handkerchief .in his coat pocket, and a hat on.
When he was in Albion-street four men came up tc:l-1,31-
The prisoner.-Stowe, who was one of them, seizedlunl by
whilst the
the throat and. pushed him against the wall,
others surrounded him and rifled his pockets. Wileu all
was over, ho found that his money, hat, and handkerchief
were gone.. He called loudly for the police, when theprt-
Boner Bennett hit him a severe blow upon the: mouth.
There was further evidence to show that Stowe, Bennett,
Redden, and another man unknown, and not in custody,
were together immediately prior to the robbery, and a
policeman:had observed them following the prosecutor.
The whole-of the prisoners were found guilty.. Sentence
deferred.
BURGLARY AT BEDFORD.—Rose Clark,, aged 20, a
domestic servant, pleaded guilty to a charge of. having, at
Bedfordi on the 19th of January, stolen from.the dwelling
house .of James Kearsley, an apron, a chemise;. and a loaf
of bread and further with having after, the robbery
" burglarionsly broken out" of the premises. Sentence
deferred.

ANOTHRR ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT.MANCIIESTER.
—Thomas Maleroy, aged 20, a French,polisher, was in-
dicted for having, at Manchester, on the-14th of January,
assaulted John Owen, and feloniously robbed him of 15s.
and a purse. Mr. Saunders prosecuted.. The prosecutor
is a cask dealer, and on the day stated, after having previ-
ously been in two or three public houses,, he went about
eleven o'clock at night into Green's vaults, in Spring-
gardens, where he had a glass of rum and water. The
prisoner was also in the vaults. The prosecutor left, and
went into Clarence-street, and while walking along he was
knocked down by a person, who put his hand in his pocket,
and took out a half-sovereign, 'a., and a purse. He looked
up, and saw that it was the prisoner. The prosecutor
immediately got up, and shouted " stop thief," when the
prisoner was pursued by a man named Robinson, and
never lost sight of till arrested by a constable. The
prisoner, with much ingenuity, endeavoured to show in
defence that the prosecutor had brought a woman of bad
character into the house with him (which was admitted),
and that he had called for-oysters which he could not pay
for, but that was denied. He also stated that he had had
an altercation on religious subjects with the prosecutor,
but that statement waatotally contradicted by the barman..
—Verdict, guilty. Sentence deferred.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY AT MANCHESTER.—Ann Vernon,
aged 48; Ann Leneghan, aged 23, hawker; and John
Leneghan, aged 2s, labourer, were charged with having,
at Warrington, assaulted. James Harding, and stolen from
him 255. Mr. MOubrey prosecuted, and Mr. Simon de-
fended the male prisoner. It appeared from the state-
ment of the prosecutor, that he is a forge hammecman,
residing in this town, but, on the 21st of February, he left
Liverpool for the purpose of going to Crewe. Having
walked all the way from Liverpool to Warrington, he
arrived there about half-past ten o'clock at night, It was
then too late to. go further, and intending to ledge that
night in Warrington, he accosted a female, and asked her
to recommend him to a place. She said she could if he
would give her a glass of ale. He did so, and they after-
wards went to another public-house, kept by a-man named
Prescot. Anthony Leneghan and the female prisoners
were in the house, and shortly afterwards John Leneghan
came in. The prosecutor treated them to two or three
glasses of ale, and at two o'clock he left to go as far as
Acton station, intending to take the railway to Crewe.
Ho got some more drink in a bottle, when he inquired
from Anthony Leneghan the way to Acton. He was told
to go down the street, and then turn to the right hand,
which would have led him a wrong direction. On getting
to the Horse Market in Warrington, he saw the three
prisoners standing at the end of a narrow street. When
he got a few hur.dred yards more on his way, his attention
was attracted by hearing footsteps behind him. They
were those of the female prisoners and John Leneghan.
John Leneghan struck him on the head with his fist a
blow which knocked him down. The female prisoners
then knelt on his body, and rifled his pockets. He struck
the woman a blow on the face, when John Leneghan gave
him a severe blow on the head, which deprived him of all
sensibility ; but on coming to himself, he found the woman
still leaning upon him. She crossed the street, and handed
something to Johu Leneghan, when they separated; and,
went in different directions. He watched the female pri-
soner to her lodgings, and acquainted the police with the
robbery. Vernon's nose was bleeding when arrested.
Upon Anthony Leneghan a marked shilling was found,
which the prosecutor positively spoke to as having been in
his possession when he left Prescot's house. Mr. Simon
addressed the jury in defence of the two Leneghans, and
his Lordship having summed up, the jury returned a ver-
dict of guilty against all the prisoners. Sentence deferred.
GAROTTE ROBBERY, AT MANCHESTER.—Sarah MOBB,
aged 21, dress-maker, was indicted for having, at Man-
chester, on the 21st of January, in company with two
men, assaulted Joseph Davies, and robbed him of 15s. 6d.,
a watchguard, and a hat, his property. Mr. Kay prose-
cuted. The prosecutor had been to Huntsbank station,
in Manchester, to meet his brother. When returning he
deSahenorsein
lost his way, and inquired from the prisoner how he could
get
lw ed down h usdkee-
liketed coughing,out a.stree at,edalue.td
imme-
diately diately afterwards some persons • seized him from behind,
throttled him, and rendered
him almost insensible. When
he recovered, he found the prisoner pulling at his pockets,
and missed the money and
lowed her to a bee h articles mentioned. He fol-
When arrested
beer house and gave- her into custody.
; she attempted to bribe the policeman, by
, slipping slily into his h
deferred. and 4s. 6d. Guilty. Sentence
i T
he Court then adjourned till nine o'clock this morning.

NISI, PRIUS COURT.
(BEFORE ?IR. BARON PLATT.)
DOBSON V. HIGGINBOTTOM.—MT. Mai*, who appeared
for the plaintiff, stated that A waa an action for the reco-.