The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-28 00:00:00

this occurred. I had my clothes on. I went down stairs
when I heard the noise. I stood at my own door

I saw a

man outside stripped, whom I supposed to have been Charles
Fagan. I went into the cellar and I saw another man. To

the best of niy knowledge and belief it was the prisoner.
He was standing on the top step and looking into the cellar.
lie had all his clothes on. He was, proclaiming against She-
. .

ridan foithe using of his wages. TWo police ()leers entered
the street, and the man who was stripped entered my houSe
and hid himself under the table. The prisoner stood in the
street telling the people the wrongs that Sheridan had done
him in not giving him his wages. I don't know when the

officers went, but when they went away the prisoner came
into my house. When he entered he began to tell me that
he was much exhausted by separating Charles (his brother)

and Sheridan. I gave Charles a shirt to put On him, and
after that they went away. I heard one call the other Charles,
and the other call out Patrick. His own shirt was all torn

and dirty. I went the next day to the King's Dock by de-
sire of Sheridan. I saw the prisoner there. He is the same
man to the best of my knowledge. I said—" Fagan, what

, •
fetches you here ?" He said—" Why ?" I said—" Sheridan
won't live." He said, as near as I can recollect, that he
might die, for he was a great rogue, and he (Fagan) got tre-

rnindous "abuse between Sheridan and his broihei• Charles

I never saw the
_prisoner from that day till he was recently

taken into custody

By Mr. Munuy.-1 cannot say that Charles Fagan has a
p_

said
man
Ti

her Patrick. I did not this morning say that if they
chew me Patrick I would not swear to this man, but I

if they would shew me Patrick Fagan, it would clear the
at the bar,—because they could not
minas Quick, a superintendent of police in this town.—

On the 3d of August, 1838,
_in consequence of information

which I receivedl went to the cellar of Sheridan in Toxteth-

park. I found him on the bed, apparently in a dying state.
He said he was aware that he could not survive many hours,

and that he had made preparations for the change. He was
a Roman Catholic, and had received the sacrament. He died

on the 16th. Preiously I had received a surgeon's certificate
on the subject.
Henry Gordon Harbord.—l am a surgeon. I was called
in to visit Sheridan on the morning of the 27th July. I found

... . . _
him very severely beaten about the head and face., He com-
plained of intense pain about the belly, and interior vomiting.
I considered him in extreme danger, and informed his wife of

the fact from the first. From the very first I give instruc-
tions to the friends to have the man apprehended, and my
fears of his death increased from day to day. I considered
that the man could not possibly recover. After consulting
with two other persons, I gave a certificate to the effect that
lie could not possibly recover, and I also informed the de-
ceased of the same. He said he was aware that he was a
killed man from the first. He died on the 16th August. I
made a post mortem examination. Th3re was a wound over

the eye, evidently inflicted by a kick. On the belly, during
life, there was a slight echymaye spot, corresponding to an
injury in the liver. The right lobe of the liver was ruptured,
and hanging in shreds. The capsule of the right kidney con-
tained only the remains .of the kidney, and was filled with

water ; and, in fact, the right kidney was an abscess. There
were abscesses in the bow'els, which had been occasioned by

external violence, as had all these injuries, which occasioned
death. The only matter of wonder, by all who were at the
post mortem examination, was, that he had lived so long. I
did not know that a man could have lived so long with such
injuries.

Superintendent• Quick recalled.—l took down a, statement
in writing. from the deceased's dictation. (Document pro-
duced.) This is his deposition, and that is his signature. I
read it over to him carefully before he signed it. _

The statement was put in and read. It was to the effect
that Sheridan had employed Charles and Patrick Fagan to

wheel out a load of lirne. They had demanded money from
him which he could not give them, as he had not received
money from the captain. When he could not give them
money they both struck, knocked him down, and kicked him,
and followed him to his cellar and beat and abused him, aA
above detailed.
James Kennedy, inspector of police, deposed, that on the
26th July, 1838, he saw the deceased, the prisoner, and
Charles Fagan quarrelling. Charles bad his shirt sleeves
rolled up, in the attitude of going to strike. Charles said he
would have money from the deceased. Patrick (the prisoner
at the bar) said the same, he would have his wages. Sheridan
said, as soon as he got money from the captain, he would pay
them. I pushed Charles away, telling him that as the man
had not money just then, it might satisfy them. They all
went away. I have known the prisoner eight or nine years ;
I never knew him by any other name than Pat Fagan.
Mary Cain deposed, that she resided in Friargate, Preston.
She had known the prisoner about two years and a half. She
knew his brother Charles also. They had worked on the
railway. She deposed that the prisoner, whose name was
John, had lodged with her, and that, some time since, Patrick

Fagan, his brother, called upon him, and afterwards had
communicated together in Irish. Patrick said he was com-
pelled to go away in consequence of what his brother had
done, for the d-d old wife had put his name down wrong.
She had heard what John had done from his wife, and she
asked him how he could find in his heart to use a man so

He replied, " Be ; I must have my wages."
On cross-examination, the witness said the prisoner had
threatened to take her life if she ever told of this job, and on
one occasion when he was about to kick her, she told him if he
did so she would bring the policeman to him. He did strike
her, and she told the police of him.
Patrick Kelver stated that he apprehended the prisoner at
Preston. He asked him if he knew John Sheridan, and he
said he had known him 19 or 20 years. He asked him if he
had ever worked for him. He said " No," he hail worked
with him. Witness told him that he was apprehending him
on suspicion of killing John Sherridan in July, 1838. He
said "I am innocent of it." He said he understood that it
was his brother Patrick. Next day, as they were coming on
the rairway, he said the deceased got the beating because lie
would not pay Charles the money. On being told by the
officer that he seemed to know all about it, he said " Only
from what I have heard." The officer told him he ought to
be cautious what he said then.
The defence got up was that the prisoner was not the man
who had been engaged in this transaction at all. Mr. Mur-
phy contended, in a very powerful speech, that the whole
evidence tended to show that it was Patrick Fagan, while the
name of the prisoner was John, his brother. The learned
gentleman called
Elis Boyle, an aged female, who stated that she had known
the Pagans from infancy. There were John and Charles
and Patrick and Peter. Never knew the prisoner, John
Fagan, to be called Patrick Fagan. He was christened John.
Was passing Peter-street, in the Park, on the evening in ques-
tion. Saw Charles Fagan coming up out of Sheridan's cellar
without his shirt, and Patrick Fagan standing above on the
cellar steps.
Mr. ARMSTRONG briefly replied, and his LORDSHIP
summed up the evidence to the jury, remarking with great
care on the most material points which it offered for cousi-

deration.
The jury, after a few moments consultation, found the
prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
His LORDSHIP remarked on the barbarous circumstances
of the case. He should pass on him the same sentence as
had already been passed on his brother.
The prisoner was sentenced to transportation for life.
MURDER.

Ellen Bannon, a good looking young woman, aged 20, was
indicted for having in this town, in May last, murdered her
female bastard child.
Mr. Venables and Mr. Paget conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. Murphy the defence.
The circumstances of this case are not fit for publication
in detail. The particulars, so far as they could be put upon
record were published at the time when the prisoner was
committed.
It appeared that on the 14th of May last, as two nightmen
were taking out a privy from a court in Addison-street, they
found the body of a female child, which had been evidently
recently born. A police-officer was sent for, and the child
was delivered to him. The prisoner worked as a shoe-
binder and stitcher, in the service of a Mr. Fenelon, a shoe-
maker, residing in Addison-street, not far from the privy
where the child was found. The circumstance of the child
being found caused the female inmates of Mr. Fenelon's
house to recall to mind the conduct of the prisoner on the
day preceding, for some time previously to which it had been
observed that her person had undergone a very marked al-
teration, which she accounted for to Mrs. Fenelon, by a
statement which was believed by that lady. It was deposed
that on the morning of the 13th of May she was exceedingly
ill, and that she sent the young woman who slept with her
out of the room to obtain some medicine for her, and subse-
quently for coffee and on various other errands. The young
woman on her return with the medicine saw the prisoner
crouched down by the side of the bed, apparently in great
pain, and immediately afterwards she heard a sort of
smothered cry, upon which the prisoner observed that she
was ill in her inside, and asked the girl if she did not hear
the noise therein. The prisoner had placed herself between
the bed and the wall, and had erected a board so that her
person was only partially visible. This witness, who was
very young, did not observe much more, except that the pri-
, soner was in bed when she went up subsequently. There
were other appearances and acts of the prisoner observed,
by Mrs. Fenelon and others, which subsequently led to the
inference that the prisoner had given birth to a child. The pri-
soner went out that evening with her cloak on, but with-
out her bonnet, and remained about ten minutes. She
subsequently stated to Mrs. Fenelon that she had mis-
carried in the street, which Mrs. Fenelon doubted, as she
had been led to believe that something had occurred at her
house. Mrs. Fenelon was much affected while giving her
evidence. She gave the prisoner a very excellent character,
as a good, industrious, sober, and sweet-tempered girl. Po-
lice-officer Guy stated that the prisoner admitted that the
child was hers, and that she had put it in the privy.
Mr. Cooper, the surgeon who examined the body of the
child, stated that there were two punctured wounds in the
head, which had been inflicted after death, no doubt by the
prongs of the nightmaies fork. The only mark of violence
was on the face, where pressure appeared to have been ap-
plied over the face and nose, which pressure he was of opi-
nion had produced suffocation. From the development of
the lungs there could scarcely, be a doubt that the child was
born alive. He examined the lungs by the hydrostatic test,
and that confirmed him in his judgment that the child was
born alive. He believed death had been caused by suffoca-
tion.
•

On cross-examination, Mr. Cooper said that it was possi-
ble, from the crouching attitude that the prisoner was stated
to have been, that the child might not have been born alive.
Mr. MURPHY dwelt strongly on the latter fact, upon the
ignorance of the poor girl of what she should do under such
circumstances, and of the little likelihood there was that one
who was described as so sweet-tempered and so gentle
should have violated all the instincts of such a nature and
laid violent hands upon her offspring.
While his LORDSHIP was summing up, Mr. MURPHY re-
quested permission to put another question to Mr. Cooper,
the reply to which strengthened the inference that the child
might have been suffocated during birth.
The jury acquitted the prisoner of the murder, and found
her guilty of concealing the birth. The prisoner was sen-
tenced to two years' imprisonment.
CONCEALING A BIRTH.
Catharine Murphy, aged about 30, was charged with hav-
ing, at Prescot, in the present month, concealed the birth of
a male infant, of which she had been delivered.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution.
The circumstances, as detailed in evidence, went to prove
that on the 9th instant the prisoner, after having exhibited
the appettrance of pregnancy, was delivered of a male child,
and that she pretended she bad miscarried. She was in the
habit of going to the cellar of a woman named Mallory, to
get water from a well that was there. Soon after the rumour
of her miscarriage, in consequence of the appearance of the
water the well was examined, and the body of a male child,
in an advanced state of decomposition, was found. Informa-
tion of the circumstance was given to the police, and the pri-
soner was questioned as to the time of her confinement, and
as to what had become of her child. She said she had buried
it in the church-yard. It was sought for in three different
places which she indicated, but it could not be found.—
The well was fourteen or fifteen yards deep, and a coal-
miner wits sent down. The surgeon who was called said de-
composition had proceeded so far that it was impossible to
tell whether the child was born alive or not.
His LORDSHIP said as the indictment was for concealing
the child in the well, the jury must be satisfied that the child
found in the well was that of which the prisoner wts deli-
vered.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and she was sentenced
to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour.

MURDER.
Thomas Wilkinson, a stout man, aged 29, was charged
with having, at Manchester, on the 14th June last, mur-

dered Maria Connor. The coroner's jury had returned a
verdict of manslaughter, but the grand jury preferred a bill
for wilful murder. At another inquisition which was taken
a verdict of wilful murder was also given it.

Mr. BRANDT conducted the prosecution, and Mr. WIL-
KINS the defence.

Ann Hampson.=—ln June last I lived in the house of
Joseph Worthington. There were two rooms in that house,
one above and one below. The room above was occupied by
the prisoner and Maria Connor, and I and Worthington oc-
cupied the room below. On the night of the 12th of June
they came home together in liquor. She had had more
liquor than he had. He lay down at that time, and when
they went up stairs he asked her to turn up some money,
which he said she had taken from his pocket. There was a
noise as if he had been kicking her, and she called " Oh !
Joe, come and save me." Worthington went up and soon
after called to me. When I went up she was lying on her
side, and Worthington was holding his arms fast. The de-
cessed had something running out of her mouth. She was
on the floor near the bed. I lifted her on the bed and bathed
her temples with cold water. A doctor was sent for, but she
appeared to be dead before he came.
Joseph Worthington corroborated the first part of the
above statement. When he arrived up stairs, Maria. Connor
was out of the bed, and the prisoner was kicking her in the
side. I asked him to be quiet for he might kill her with a
chance blow. I said "be quiet," and got hold of him round
the body. He cursed her, and said he would have his money.
I asked her to give him his money if she had got it. She
put her hand in her left stocking, and pulled out half-a-crown
and a shilling, and gave it to him. He said that was not it
all, and he began to kick her again, and catched her with his
foot on the right side of her head. He kicked her in the
side with his foot. I got hold of him again, and he up with
his foot and kicked her in the mouth, which cut her lip, and
her mouth began to bleed. She still sat, and I asked him to
come down stairs, and was pulling him away, when he up
with his foot and kicked her in the throat. She then fell off
the bed side, and began vomiting something dark coloured.
I called for Ann Hampson, and she came, and the prisoner
went down stairs with me. I told him I thought he had
" done it," and he said, " not I." Ann Hampson shouted
down stairs that she was dying. She shouted down stairs
again that he had killed her, and he said, " if lie bad not
done so, when he went up stairs again be would do so." We
both went up together shortly after. We felt to find if she
could breathe, but she did not, and I said, " let's have a
doctor." He said never mind a doctor. I sent for a doctor.
It appeared on cross-examination, that both the deceased
and Ann Hampson were living in prostitution in this house
in question, with the prisoner and Worthington: answer

to Mr. Wilkins, Worthington denied that-he had held out
any threat to induce Ann Hampson to give any particular
evidence.

Joseph Wardle, a police-officer of Manchester, stated that

he found the girl, Maria Connor, dead. She had several
wounds on her face, and a severe wound in her neck, under
her chin. When this was pointed out to him he said it was
there before. Ann Hampson shook her head. The prisoner
said if she had not taken his money he should not have done
it. The prisoner when he got down stairs said, he had
struck her once in the head, and when she, was falling he
kicked her in the throat, and if they would go up stairs they
would see the marks of his shoe in her throat. Mr. Taylor,
the surgeon, compared her shoe with the mark in the neck.
There were five nails in one shoe, which corresponded with
marks in the neck. Witness described other marks. _

Mr. Taylor, surgeon, of Manchester, described the injuries
which the deceased had received. She had two old bruises

about her eyes, a recent contusion in the eye, a cut in the
lower jaw, and a very severe laceration across the throat,
which had evidently been inflicted by a kick—the shoes hav-
ing nails in, and the kick going directly upwards. There
were severe bruises on the hips, and one on her right hand.
The five nails in front. of the shoes, which were produced,
exactly corresponded with the marks on the throat and hand.
On a post mortem examination, it was found that death had
been produced by an effusion of blood on the brain, and rup-
ture of the blood vessels at the base of the brain, produced
by the injury in the throat.
Mr. WiLKINs made a powerful appeal to the jury in behalf
of the prisoner, contending that the case was one of man-
slaughter, as it had been found to be by the twelve intelligent
men who had constituted the coroner's jury.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
Mr. WILKINS called a witness, who stated that the pri-
soner was a peaceable and humane man.
His LORDSHIP remarked on the barbarity of the offence,
and said he should mark, by a severe sentence, such barbarity
on an unfortunate female. His lordship passed sentence of
transportation for life.
The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron Rolfe and a Special Jury.)
• ADAMSON V. MITCHELL AND ANOTHER.

This was an action upon a charter party. Mr. Cresswell
and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Alexander
and Mr. Wightman for the defendants.
In the course of a trial which lasted nearly four hours, it
appeared that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the schooner
William and James, Captain Jethro, of Dundee. The action
was brought to recover compensation for demurrage caused
to the ship through the defendants not having discharged the
cargo. The defendants, by their house in St. Petersburgh,
chartered the vessel to convey a cargo of hemp to a port on
the east side of the coast of Great Britain, between Hull and
Aberdeen inclusive. Thirty days were allowed for loading
and unloading, and in case of demurrage £3 a day was to be
allowed over and above those terms. The present action was
brought upon the assumption that, through the neglect of
the defendants, twenty-seven days were occupied beyond the
time originally agreed upon. When the vessel arrived at
Hull, a dispute arose between the owners of the cargo and
the captain, whether the ship was not bound to proceed to
Kirkaldy instead of discharging the cargo at Hull. Negoti-
ations went on for some time, but as they produced no re-
sults, the captain discharged the cargo into the bonded ware-
houses of the dock company.
On the part of the defendants, three pleas were set up :
first, that the ship proceeded from St. Petersburgh, without
their directions, to the port of Hull ; that after she got there
they gave directions for her to proceed northward to Kirk-
ably, and it was by reason of that refusal that additional
delay had occurred. The second plea differed from the first
only in stating, that whilst the vessel was proceeding to Hull,
notice was given to the plaintiff for her to proceed to Kirk-
aldy, but she proceeded to Hull without their leave and li-
cense ; and the third plea was, that instructions to that effect
were given to the captain before he sailed from St. Peters-
burgh.

A variety of oral and documentary evidence was given in
support of these pleas—all of which were denied by the
plaintiff.
The JUDGE. in charging the jury, told them that on the
fitst and third pleas the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict,
and for the defendant on the second, subject to the decision
of the court above, whether it was a good plea.
The jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintiff on all
the issues. Damages, £Bl.