The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

SENTENCES

Thos. Ball, convicted of having stolen a mare, belonging
to Thomas Hewitt, and a gelding, belonging to Thomas Al-
lenson, was sentenced to two months' solitary confinement
for the first offence, and to 15 years' transportation for the
second.

John Lee, who pleaded guilty of having stolen property be-
longing to John Harrison and other parties, was sentenced
to two months' imprisonment and hard labour, at Kirkdale,
the two first and last weeks to be passed in solitary confine-
ment : he was afterwards to be transported for 10 years.
Richard Chadwick, convicted of highway robbery, at Ince,
near Wigan, was sentenced to eighteen months imprison-
ment, the two first dad last weeks in solitary confinement.

MANSLAUGHTER CASES.

Elizabeth Brown and James Lynch were indicted for hav-
ing killed William Dunn, in Liverpool, on the 19th day of
February last.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Armstrong and
Mr. Henderson. 'Mr. Murphy defended the prisoner Eliza-
beth Brown.

The principal witness in the case was Ann Farrell, a very
young but intelligent little girl. It appeared that, between
six and seven o'clock on the 19th February, Mrs. Mary Far-
rell, who keeps a cooper's shop, in Gibbon's-lane, Queen-
street, had a quarrel with the prisoner Brown, who had as-
sailed her with violent abuse in the street. From words the
parties came to blows, Mrs. Brown having struck Mrs. Far-
rell, who returned the compliment. The two females were
fighting, when the little girl, Ann Farrell, went into the shop
and called out the deceased, William Dunn, a cooper, who
was then at work. He ran out with his drawing-knife,
which he had been using, in his hand, and attempted to
separate the two females. The prisoner Lynch, who was
looking_ on, immediately interfered on behalf of Brown, by
whoin Dunn was, at the same time, attacked. They shook
him, and endeavoured to take the knife from him ; and, as
Lynch was a much more powerful man than Dunn, the hit-
ter made off. Mrs. Brown threw a brick at him, which
struck bins in the forehead, and inflicted a wound. Lynch
went up and struck him on the wound, knocked him down,
and kicked him. He appeared to have been seriously in-
jured, and was carried away to a surgeon, who dressed his
forehead. He was afterwards, on the 20th February, car•
tied to the Northern Hospital, afflicted with a locked jaw.
The wound over his forehead was healing. A severe contu-
sion was found on his back, about four inches from his spine.
He died on the 4th of March. The immediate cause of death
was stated to be lock-jaw, which the surgeon of the Northern
Hospital attributed to the wound which he had received on
the scalp, though it might have been occasioned by the con-
tusion. The deceased was a man of about forty years of age,
and had been a drunkard. Previous to his death, and while
under the full conviction that he could not recover, he de-
tailed to Mr. Dowling the circumstances under which the
injuries were inflicted. Mr. Dowling took down his state-
ment in writing, and it was read to the court. It was, ge-
nerally, confirmatory of the evidence given by the witnesses.
The little girl, Farrell, was re-called, and a good deal of
doubt was thrown over her testimony by some discrepancies
which were discovered between her evidence in court and
that in the deposition taken before the coroner. Two wit-
nesses, both of very humble rank, were called to depose as
to the character of Elizabeth Brown. They described her
as a very sober and peaceable woman.
The Jury, after a few minutes consultation in the box, re-
tired at a quarter past one o'clock. They returned in about
forty minutes, and delivered a verdict of Guilty against both
prisoners. Elizabeth Brown was sentenced to one year's im-
prisonment and hard labour, at Kirkdale : Lynch to two
years' imprisonment and hard labour in the same gaol. Both
prisoners to spend the first and last weeks of their imprison-
ment in solitary confinement.
William Bibby. aged 44, was indicted for having killed his
wife, Susan Bibby, at Kirkdale, on the 13th October last.
Mr. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. -Murphy
for the defence.

The prisoner was seen, by several individuals, cruelly beat-
ing his wife, who was very much injured by his blows. She
ran into a neighbour's house, and being extremely ill, a sur-
geon (Mr. Bradbridge, of Kirkdale) was sent for, but she
died before his arrival. Mr. Bradbridge, who made a post-
mortem examination of the body, was called as soon as the
leading features of the case had been established. He
stated, that Mrs. Bibby had died a natural death. He found
that she was afflicted with dropsy in the chest and an en-
largement of the aorta. Though her death might have been
hastened by the blows which she had received, he could not
swear that it had been caused by them. The prisoner, under
the direction of his lordship, was acquitted.
Elizabeth 211'Avoy, aged 30, was charged with having, in
Liverpool, on the 31st December last, killed her husband,
William iNPAvoy.

Mr.' Murphy prosecuted : the prisoner was not defended.
On the 31st of December last the prisoner and her husband
had a' quarrel, which arose out of the dissatisfaction ex-
pressed by him that the prisoner had neglected to have his
dinner ready. She seems to have been a woman of violent
temper, and was exasperated at him for finding fault with her.
She took the potatoes which were to be served for his dinner
and threw them on the fire ; upon which he, annoyed at her
conduct, threw her (not violently, it was stated) on the bed.
She arose, seized the fryingpan, which was at hand, and
struck him violently on the head. He uttered an exclama-
tion, and sank into the chair. She seized a brush by the
handle, and with the head of it struck him again on his head.
He became very ill soon after, and a surgeon was sent for, by
whom he was bled, blistered, and cupped. He became de-
lirious, and died on the 6th of January. It did not appear
that, during his illness, the deceased had at all accused or
blamed his wife. On the contrary, it was stated that she
was very attentive to him during his illness ; and one witness
stated that he exonerated her from all blame.

The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to imprison-
ment and hard labour for one year, at Kirkdale, the last week
to be spent in solitary confinement.
UTTERING FORGED ACCEPTANCES.
William Sedgwick, aged 20, was charged with having fe-
loniously uttered certain forged acceptances, at Prescot, in
this county.
Dr. BROWN conducted the prosecution, Mr. WrttliNs the
defence.

The particulars of this case were published at full length
when the charge was brought before the magistrates, at Kirk-
dale, in November last. The prisoner went, at several times,

in the month of October las't, to Mr. Richard Bradshaw
Southern, draper, Mr. Edmund Ward, solicitor, and Mr.
William Deakin, tailor, all of Prescot, to each of whom he
was indebted, and, offering to pay them portions of their ac-
counts, procured discounts of divers bills of exchange, which
purported to be acceptances of William Newman and other
persons in London. The case relative to the bill on Mr.
Newman, paid to Mr. Southern, was the only one heard.
The Jury, at once, found him guilty. Dr. Brown recom-
mended him to the favourable consideration of the Court.

Mr. Southern also spoke favourably of him, and stated, that
he had been recently married to a young lady in a sphere
somewhat above him. Dr. Brown handed up a letter from
the Rector of Prescot, recommending the prisoner very
strongly to mercy. It was stated, by the Chaplain of the
Kirkdale Gaol, that the prisoner had been a teacher in a Sun-
day-school at Prescot.
His LORDSHIP alluded to the mercy of the prosecutor in
not pressing the other charges, and stated, that, if they had
been pressed and conviction followed, he should have felt it
his duty to send the prisoner out of the country. His lord-
ship took the excellent character which the prisoner had re-
ceived into consideration, and passed the most lenient sen-
tence in his power. The prisoner is to be imprisoned at

Kirkdale during two years, the last week to be spent in soli
tary confinement.

COWSTEALING.

John Parr, alias Thomas Marshall, who was stated to be
a master butcher, was indicted for having stolen two cows,
the property of John Ledger.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced
to 18th months' imprisonment and hard labour.
The court adjourned a few minutes after six o'clock, till
nine o'clock on Monday morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY.

His Lordship took his seat, this morning, at afew minutes
after nine o'clock.

The Court was occupied until three o'clock with Nos. 40
and 27 in the Salford list, two actions for the recovery of
trifling debts.

SENTENCE ON THE MESSRS. SOWLER.

After the conclusion of the above case, his Lordship pro-
ceeded to pass sentence on the defendants in the case of
" The Queen v. Sowler and another." He said :—Thomas
Sowler and Robert Scarr Sowler, you were severally con-
victed, yesterday, of an assault on Jeremiah Garnett. During
the progress of the plaintiff's case, it appearing that no per-
sonal injury had been sustained by him, and, from the state-
ment, conceiving that the transaction had originated from
some newspaper quarrel, I did think, that the best mode of
concluding the prosecution would have been for you to have
made an apology to the man whom you had assaulted, and,
if Mr. Garnett had been contented to have accepted that
apology, I should have felt diposed there to allow the case to
have dropped. But you, Thomas Sowler, objected to such
a cuirse, and put it on the ground, that you had not been
guilty of an assault, thereby charging Mr, Garnett with hav-
ing falsely sworn to the fact he had then deposed to, that
you seized by the arm and there kept him confined while
your son assaulted him with a horsewhip, which, however,
appears to have been but a small one. I then felt it quite
impossible that I could take any further step, but must per-
mit the -case to go on to the conclusion, and that you must
abide the result. The case went on. No witnesses were
called on your part to rebut the testimony of Mr. Garnett,
and the jury very properly found you guilty ; and, although
insult, and not personal injury, appears to have been the ob-
ject you had in view, I cannot say that the insult was given
under circumstances that reflected any great credit on either
of you, because you appear to have gone in company to
commit the assault, and when the son was ready to strike
Mr. Garnett with the horsewhip, the father was engaged in
holding the hand of the plaintiff, either to prevent him ward-
ing off the blows directed at him, or returning them with the
umbrella in his hand. Now, this is not the way in which
the law allows newspaper editors to settle their quarrels.
Yon may have imagined that you were acting correctly, in-
asmuch as your aim was not personal injury, but to insult
the plaintiff, so as, perhaps, to induce him to break the peace
in another way ; but the law will not allow you to insult fur
such a purpose, and I must, therefore, pass on you such a
sentence as will tend, to restrain such acts. The sentence of
ihe Court is, that you he severally imprisoned in a gaol of
the county for three months, and that, at the expiration 'of,
that imprisonment, you severally find security to keep the,
peace for two years, yourselves in £2OO each, and two secu-
rities in £5O each, and that you be further imprisoned until
that security he found.
One of the defendants intimated, through his attorney,
.
that the New Bailey would suit them.
The JUDGE.—The New Bailey be it, then.
An application was subsequently made, at the. request of
the prosecutor, that the learned Judge would allow the de-
fendants to be at large until Monday.
His Lordship complied with the request.

FOSTER V. BENTLEY AND ANOTHER.

After this case had occupied the Court above an hour, the
parties consented to an arbitration.

ASSAULT.-HIBBERT V. BUCKLEY.

In this case Mr. Brandt was for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Cresswell for the defendant.

Mr. BRANDT, in opening, said that this was an assault
case, in which Mr. William Hibbert, who, in the month of
June, last year, was overseer of the township of Gorton, was
the plaintiff, and the defendant, Mr. John Bradley, was a
fanner in the township.

The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, one farthing
The Court rose at ten minutes past five.

CROWN COURT.-YESTERDAY.

George Hargreaves, 31. was charged with having, at Hea-
ton Norris, feloniously stolen a mare, the property of George
Dearden.

The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to two
years' imprisonment and hard labour at Kirkdale.
Charles Hunt, 25, stood indicted for having, at Ashton-
under-Lyne, burglariouslv broken and entered the dwelling-
house of Christopher Bolton, and stolen 25 sovereigns, a
watch, and other articles, the property of the said Christopher
Bolton. The prisoner was discharged on bail on the Bth inst.
and sgain committed, charged with having. at Ashton, stolen
20 books, the property of Edward Hobson. It appeared that
the money was taken from a school room. The evidence was
almost wholly circumstantial. The prisoner lodged with the
prosecutor, a butcher, and his wife. The latter party missed
the money mentioned in the indictment, which was kept in a
secret drawer, in a box, and from this it was abstracted, as
well as the watch, &c. and some suspicion of the prisoner
arose, from the circumstance of his having been entrusted
with a key, .by which he could admit himself in the absence
of the family. On the night of the robbery, the latter went
out to market, and the prisoner announced his intention of
going by the 7 o'clock coach to Manchester, to see his mother
who was ill. He however, did not go by that coach, but
booked himself by the nine o'clock coach in his own name.
At nine c'clock, the house doors, which were left closed, were
found open ; and it appeared that the robbery had been com-
mitted before that hour. A witness swore that he saw a
person like the prisoner coming out of the front door about
that time ; he was not then sure that it was the prisoner, but
from what had since transpired, he felt certain that it was he.
The money, watch, &c. were afterwards found in the cellar
of the house, in a parcel, amongst some rubbish. The pri-
soner returned to the house next day, and was apprehended
by Newton, police constable, who rather prematurely said
that he suspected him of having committed the robbery. To
some questions from the officer, the prisoner said he had
gone by the seven o'clock coach, &c. which was not precisely
true. There was no evidence that the prisoner had ever seen
the box in which the money was placed, or that ht had been
in the room where it was.

• The Learned JUDGE summed up in a very perspicuous
manner.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty. Another case against the same prisoner remains
to be tried.

Mr. Peel conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins
ably defended-the prisoner.

SHEEP STEALING.

Cornelius France, 34, William Ashcroft, 33, and Henry
Highton, were charged with having, at Wigan, feloniously
stolen a sheep, the property of one Thomas Welsh.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins
the defence.

Thomas Welsh, a butcher, of Wigan, said he had a sheep
on the 9th of October, in a field, which lie missed on the
following day. He afterwards saw the skin of a sheep, which
he knew from the skin to be his. Be afterwards went to the
house of Cornelius France, where Ashcroft lived. He there
found part of a neck of mutton, part of a shoulder, and a
shank. He said that it was his, and that he had a foot that
would fit the shank. The prisoner was afterwards appre-
hended at a coal pit, by Mr. Whittle, constable, who was
accompanied by the witness.
Mr. Whittle, chief constable of Wigan, said that be saw
the mutton, and afterwards took the prisoners France and
Ashcroft into custody. The prisoners said they had bought
it in the market place. France aftewards said that it would
be a had job for him. He afterwards said that lie and High-
ton had gone into the tield, that Highton had caught the
sheep ; that they cut its throat and flayed it ; and that they
afterwards took it to Highton's house, and that he got one
half of it, and they the other half.
Several persons deposed to having purchased mutton from
Highton.
Mr. Woodcock, magistrates' clerk, heard the prisoners
Ashcroft and France examined. On being cautioned, France
admitted that he was with Highton, and that the latter caught
the sheep, and that they killed and divided it. Ashcroft ad-
mitted this to be the fact. -
Ma. WILKINS spoke for the defence of Highton only. He
contended that what was said by the other prisoners was not
legal evidence against him. All that appeared therefore,
was, that he was selling some small quantities of mutton.
This, it alight be said, was•suspicious, but did not, he thought,
amount to absolute proof, and lie therefore looked for an ac-
quittal, upon the doubts which must arise in the minds of
the jury.
The learned JUDGE directed the jury to find Fiance and
Ashcroft guilty, they having confessed. With respect to
Highton, the legal evidence amounted to only a case of sus-
picion.
The Jury found France and Ashcroft guilty, and Hi ghton•
not guilty.
His LORDSHIP, in addressing the two prisoners, said they
had been found guilty on the clearest evidence. The crime
was one which, if it continued to increase, the judges would
be compelled to visit with most severe punishment. The
present case was an aggravated one, the parties having acted
by previous concert. He would not, however, sentence the
prisoners to transportation, but hoped they would benefit by
the imprisonment which they would have to undergo. The

prisoners were then sentenced to 18 months' imprisonmen
and hard labour in Kirkdate Gaol.

V )11,GERY.

Richard Barlow,: 8, a respectably-dressed man, stood in -
dieted with having, si“vianchester, feloniously uttered and
paid to Joseph Seddon, a forged bill of exchangle, for X-19212,
purporting to be accepted by Leaf and Co., merchants,
London.

Mr. Joseph Seddon.—l am a banker in Manchester, and
have four partners. On the 4th May last the prisoner pre-
sented the bill produced, drawn by himself, and purporting
to be accepted on Leaf and Co., merchants, London. He
stated they were a branch of the house of Leaf and Co., and
a very rich house. The bill was dishonoured and returned.
It was due on the 18th August, and was returned on the 20th.
Mr. BAINES defended the prisoner, Witness had known
the prisoner for 15 or 16 years. His friends were highly re-
spectable in Manchester. He had paid five bills previously
to the last, from £1,500 to £2,000, all of which were duly
honoured. . .

—..—._.
Re-examined.—A bill made payable to a particular party
might be taken up without the knowledge of the acceptor.
Mr. Leaf, partner of Leaf, Coles, & Co., said he was a
partner also of Leaf, Crofts,' & Co.—This bill is not in the
handwriting of any one in either house authorised to sign
acceptances. , I never saw this bill before.
Cross-examined.! take an active part in the firm of
Leaf, Coles, & Co., in the Old 'Change, but not in the other
in the Old Jewry. There is also a firm in London of Leaf,
Smith, and M`Dougal.
John Smith, a police-officer, said,—l received the pri-
soner into custody at,the Compter. He said he had met at
Liverpool a young man named. Robert Leaf, who said he
was a nephew of. Leaf & Co.. andthat be had signed the bill.
Witness asked him where Robert Leaf was, and prisoner
replied that he had been looking after him in Liverpool and
London, but had not found him.
Cross-examined.—Messrs. Leaf & Co. have a great many
purchasers in the country.
Mr. Owen, a clerk to the bank of Messrs. Seddon & Co.,
heard the prisoner say that Leaf & Co., by whom the accep-
tance was signed, were a branch of the house of Messrs.
Leaf, Coles, & Co., of London.
Mr. BAINES addressed the jury, in an able manner, in
behalf of the prisoner, contending that he had been made
the dupe of an artful individual, who had represented him-
self as a party authorised to draw a bill on Leaf & Co., and
had himself escaped from punishment, while he had left the
prisoner in the meshes of the law. He besought the jury
to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubts that arose in
the case. _ _ _ _

Many gentlemen of the highest respectability, who had
known the prisoner a great number of years, gave him a most
excellent character. .

The learned JUDGE summed up. He stated that a party
making use of another party's name, by putting it to a bill,
even though he hoped to he able to take it up, was in law
guilty of forgery ; and stated that the question was, did the
prisoner know, of did he not know, that the bill when he ut-
tered it was a forgery.
The jury retired, and after an absence of fifteen minutes
returned a verdict of Guilty.
The sentence was deferred until this day.