The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-02 00:00:00

Sally Doncaster saw the transaction: and gave the alarm
•

John Bacon, police-officer, testified that he saw the pri-
soner striking the prosecutor, and then took him into cus-
tody. He took a sling with a round piece of lead at the end
of it from the prisoner, with which he was striking the friend
of the prosecutor.
John Owen, another constable, gave similar evidence.
John Julius Jones, surgeon, of Dale-street, examined
Lockerby, and found a wound in his right side, about 2
inches in length and 11 in depth. Did not consider the
wound dangerous. The effusion of blood had been great,
and the wound appeared to have been given by a large knife.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury immediately
found the prisoner guilty.
He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
MANSLAUGHTER.

Henry Norris, 17, was charged with having, on the 27th
of August last, killed Thomas Blundell, in West Derby.
Dr. Brown prosecuted. Mr. Wilkins was retained for the
defence, but being engaged in the civil court Mr. Murphy
took his brief.

The prisoner was a carter, and on the day in question was
driving his cart without reins in West Derby, when the de-
ceased was run over and killed.

A woman who saw the accident, the grandmother of the
child, and the surgeon who examined it, gave their evidence,
which was very brief, and simply stated the facts.
Mr. MURPHY then addressed the jury. His LORDSHIP
summed up, and the prisoner was found guilty, but recom-
mended to mercy. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for
four months.

David Williams, 29, was indicted for killing and slaying
John Davies, at Liverpool, on the 31st of August last.

Mr. Venables and Mr. Ramshay prosecuted. Mr. Mur-
phy again held Mr: Wilkin's brief. . .

On the 2ith of August the deceased was drunk in his own
house, in Prince Edwin's-lane, and having assailed the pri-
soner, a scuffle ensued, during which he fell, and died shortly
afterwards.

It appeared from the cross-examination, that the deceased,
who was quite drunk, gave all the provocation, and struck
the prisoner first.

Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury for the defence. There
was no proof, he contended, that the cause of death was the
blow given by the prisoner, but that the fall which he got
was the means of his death.

Several witnesses were called to speak to the prisoner's
character, and the jury acquitted him.
James Hale, 20 (could neither read nor write), was charged
with having, at Manchester, caused the death of Wm. Wall,
a boy in his employ, he himself being a master sweep.
Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Hulton prosecuted.
Michael Kirley, a sickly looking little boy, about nine
years of age, who has been employed by the prisoner to sweep
chimneys, said that he had lived about thirteen months with
the prisoner. Remembers having to go to sweep Mr. Kir-
shaw's chimney. Deceased went with them about half past
six. There was nobody there to let them in, and they got
over the wall. Win. Wall went up one flue and witness up
the other side, which was the hottest side of the flue, and
belonged to a boiler. He came out again in about ten min-
utes on hearing his master call. When he came up his master
was outside, and told him the boy was dead. The boy was
up in the flue. He went into the place over the bridge of
the boiler, and the prisoner pulled the deceased out through
the fire-place. Witness went into the far end of the boiler,
but could not get the deceased out. When taken out the boy
was quite dead, and the body was taken to the Crown and
Anchor. His master lifted the boys up and put them into
the flues, telling them to " sweep it clean." He tried to get
up the same side the deceased went up. but ?after getting uu
to the middle he could go no further, it was so hot. Wall
had not swept any flues of the same kind before.
•

Cross-examined by the prisoner.—Wall went up the flame
bed himself.

John Muscroft, the engineer, deposed that the prisoner
raked the embers from the fire, and ought to make a hole to
admit the cold air before the boys were put into the flues, in
order that the flame bed might be cooled by letting in the
cold air. Prisoner had been employed sweeping similar
flues for thirteen months, and had always made the holes.
Spoke tohim about the holes, telling him to break them open.
It would not be a safe thing to sweep the flue by boys with-
out breaking open the holes: Had swept the flues himself
without opening the holes hnt nn those occasions the boiler
was cleaned out and filled with cold water. Did not get to
the works that Sunday morning till twenty minutes to seven.
Prisoner ought not to have swept the flues till the boiler had
been cleaned out, and filled with cold water. When he swept
the flues there was another person with him, and they took
it in turns, as they got too hot to go in. It would be danger-
ous for boys to go into chimneys for fear of the cramp.
Cross-examined.—lt was his duty to have put cold water
into the boiler, and he would have done it had he been there
in time. Prisoner was much distressed.

John Denning was awakened on the morning in question
by the prisoner, who said " a little boy is fast in the flue."
When he reached the place the boy was quite dead, but very
wet. Prisoner said he had pulled the boy through the ash-
pit, which was full of water. Put his arm up the flue, and
found it so hot that he could not hold it there. Believed it
would have cooked a beefsteak in twenty minutes. Called
the prisoner a scoundrel, and some men who were in the
place would have abused the prisoner had he not interfered.
Washed the deceased's face with a handkerchief, and the
skin came off. _ _

James Starkie, who ought to have assisted the engineer to
empty the boiler, corroborated the previous witnesses, add-
ing, that at four o'clock in the afternoon the boy who swept
the flue said it was then very hot, although the hole had been
opened.
Mrs. Wall stated that the deceased was her son, and would
have been ten years old next birth-day.
Mr. Dyson, surgeon, made a post mortem examination of
the body, and observed burns on the back, calves of the legs,
and toes. Opened the body, and found the chest very much
congested with blood. The windpipe had the symptoms
which usually attend cases of suffocation. The cause of
death was from breathing air devoid of oxygen, and mixed
with carbonic acid gas.
Examined by the JUDGE.—The flues might be swept with-
out boys, if the parties were to put themselves to a little more
expense:.

Mr. WILK!Ns addressed the jury for the defence.
The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to four
months imprisonment.

STABBING.
Thomas Watts (not in the calendar) was indicted for
wounding Robert Heathcott.
Dr. Brown prosecuted ; Mr. Green and 10 r. Wilkins ap-
peared for the defence.

The prisoner and the prosecutor quarrelled -in Mr. Higgin-
bottom's office, Piccadilly, Manchester, when a fight ensued.
Prisoner afterwards stabbed Heathcott in I.he right side.
The prosecutor in this case did not come ui )rward to give
evidence, and his recognisances were estreatei I.
Mr. GREEN addressed the jury at great let igth, and after
his LORDSHIP had summed up, the prisoner was found
guilty, and sentenced to one year's imprisonrt tent.
The court rose at half-past five.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNEI,DAY.
PARR AND OTHERS V. RICHMON D.
Verdict for plaintiffs, who were bankers, fa r £llB Os. 2d.,
the amount of a bill.

WILL V. PLATT.
Verdict for plaintiff by consent for £250, subject to a re-
ference.

SHEFFIELD RAILWAY V. THOM 9 ON.
Verdict for plaintiff by consent for .1E2,818.
DREARLY V. RADCLIFFE.
Verdict for plaintiff for £5O damages and 40s. costs, sub-
ject to a reference.

PATCHETT V. SMITH.
Withdrawn.
WILLIAMS V. MILLINGTON ill N

In this case, Samuel Williams was plainti: if, and John and
Anne Millington, the administratrix to Eth yard Shaw, were
the defendants. The action was brought for the"recovery of
£39 6s. Bd., and the defendants pleaded tl iat the late Mr.
Shaw had not been indebted.

Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case. The 1 plaintiff kept an
inn and lodging-house at Salford, and be had l received an in-
timate acquaintance of his (Mr. shaw's) ind ) his house, and
had furnished him with board and lodging do wn to his death,
a period of two years. An arrangement wa s made between
the parties that Mr. Shaw should pay 125.. a week for the
services rendered him ; and having had, during the two
years, several of his friends stopping at the I louse, who had
been furnished with beds and food, he undertook to pay
whatever charge should be fair and reasonable for them. The
defendant was a farmer, in Flintsbire, and hs made his ap-
pearance in the action in consequence of his I laving married
a person who was sister to the deceased gel itleman's late
wife. At the death of Mr. Shaw, the plaintiff thought to ob-
tain the property of which he had been possessed in order to
satisfy his claim, but the wife of the defendant to sok out letters
of administration, and proceeded to act upon ti 'iem. Several
applications had been made to her for what a •as due to the
plaintiff, but, as she had refused to pay, the ; resent action
was brought.
A number of witnesses were examined on be half of both
plaintiff and defendants, and after his lordship had summed
up, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of )ne farthing.

BANKS AND ANOTHER V. HIGGINS AND AN. OTHER.
Verdict for plaintiff for £47 17s. 6d. and 40s. a fsts, subject
to a reference.

PARKINSON V. DRINKWATER.
Mr. DUNDAS stated the case. The gentlemt In who was
plaintiff in the action was a surveyor, living at St ockport, in
the neighbourhood of Manchester, and he compla fined before
the court and jury of a very violent and unjustifiable assault
which had been committed upon him by the deten dant. The
defendant was a mill-owner at Salford, and it app eared that,
in the spring of the present year, himself and a pe, rson of the
name of Crankshaw had a difference, which ended in Crank-
shaw bringing au action against the defendant on t he subject.
Those who advised Mr. Crankshaw to bring the action di
rected him to obtain a
.plan taken of the premises where the
occurrence took place. Accordingly, the plaintiff t 'as chosen
by Mr. Crankshaw's people to go and take a plan e the pre-
mises, and upon the 24th of July he went to the t nill. He
had been allowed to enter the premises ; he took his surveys ;
made his measures; but did not complete his bust ness that
day- Next day he returned. He went in again. No per-
son stopped him. No one thought he was doing ai ly harm.
He did what he went there to do. He then came out from
the premises, and when he had been about twenty ya rds from
the mill, up came the defendant. The latter as' ted him
something about the plan, such as "who it was RI r," and
" who he had been doing it for." Plaintiff repliec 1 that he
had been doing it for Mr. Crankshaw. " What !" , said the
defendant, " for that d—.d scoundrel ; I shall h ave it."
" d—d if you shall," said the plaintiff; wheren non the
defendant rushed upon him in, a very violent manner, thrust
his hand into his throat, and, by main force, took t he plan
out of his pocket and kept it to the present day. N of con.
tent with that, be seizes hold of the fumy, chin 'ad the

plaintiff with some kind of an offence for ttezpass,
d
him along the street by force, took him through the =I C
thoroughfares of Salford, made him go with him to the po-
lice-office (a quarter of a mile off the town), and delivered
him into the charge of the police there as a person guilty of
an offence. He put him into the office, saying " I charge
him with a wilful trespass ;" and there the plaintiff was kept
in durance for an hour and a-half, when in came the super-
intendendent of police, who took his word for his appear-
ance, and allowed him to go at large until Monday morning.
On Monday the matter came before the justices, who said
there was no earthly reason for the conduct of the defendant,
that the defendant had no pretence for saying that he should
have him taken into custody. What sort of justification had
the defendant made on the present occasion ? Why, none.
He said, " True it is I took your plan, and I will give you a
guinea for it ;" and really and truly this was all he had said,
,with the exception of adding that the plaintiff had given him
leave to do as he had done ; but if he had given him leave,
then all he (Mr. D.) could say was, that he had been strangely
instructed. There were, therefore, three questions for the
jury to dispose of :—First, had the assault been committed;
secondly, had the plaintiff given the defendant leave and
license to commit the act ; and thirdly, what had been the
value of the plan.

Several witnesses were examined to prove the case, after
which

Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the defendant.
He contended that the plaintiff had intruded himself into the
mill to take the admeasurement of the premises ; that as a
guinea had been paid into court for the plan, he had been
amply remunerated for his trouble in drawing it; that the
charge of imprisonment was a mere farce, and that the de-
fendant had acted as any gentleman of the jury would have
acted in similar cases, had they found an intruder coming out
of their mills, or their drawing, after having poked about the
house, picking up information to make out his survey.
No witnesses were called for the defence, and the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff for 40s. damages, and 40s.
costs.

HULME AND ANOTHER V. DOOLEY.
In this case Richard and Thomas Hulme were plaintiffs,
and Charles Dooley, as the executor of James Booth, was
the defendant. The action was brought for the recovery of
the sum of £lO6 15s. for goods sold and delivered, and
money due on an account stated, alleging the money to have
become due. The defendant pleaded that he was not execu-
tor. The plaintiffs were meal and flour dealers at Bolton,
and the deceased, Mr. Booth, carried on business at Rad-
cliffe, in this county, and had been in the habit of buying
flour and meal from the plaintiffs. The question for the jury
was, not whether the money was due, but whether the de-
fendant was or was not Mr. Booth's executor, and if they
should be of opinion that he was, then he would be subject
to the liabilities of an executor.

Verdict for the plaintiffs.
BURTON AND ANOTHER V. r OARDMAN
_...

This was an action for the recovery of £3O, being the
amount of a bill of exchange payable at three months' date.
The defendant pleaded that be had not accepted the bill.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount.
The Court adjourned at ten minutes to six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—YESTERDAY
CHARGE OF RAPE.
Lewis Hart was indicted for having violently and feloni-
ously ravished Elizabeth Gordon, on the 22d of last August.
The following gentlemen were sworn to try the case :
William Anderson, James Abbott, William Barker, Peter
Copeland, John Cunningham, John C. Cheveley, George
Crossley, Richard Dearden, Jas. Fairclough, James Knott,
William Taverner, and Thomas Leicester.
Upon the suggestion of Mr. Wilkins. counsel for the pri-
soner, the witnesses on both sides, were ordered out of court,
before the proceedings were commenced.
Mr. STARKIE stated the case. He said the jury having
just heard the nature of,the charge, it became his duty, and
a very unpleasant one it was, to enter into a detail of the
circumstances. It was one, however, which the justice of
the case required, and he would endeavour to be as brief as
possible in stating the leading features of it to them, not, of
course, going into detail, and with as little of comment as
it necessarily required. Mrs. Gordon, who was the prosecu-
trix on the occasion, and also had charged the prisoner with
v'olating her person, was a married lady, whose husband,
he believed, had been in the habit of gaining a livelihood as
a tutor. He had opened an establishment at one time near
Liverpool, for the purpose of taking pupils, but not succeed-
ing, he resided at present in London, and had, in fact, re-
sided but little with his wife, other circumstances having
prevented them from cohabiting together—not in consequence
of having had any quarrel or disagreement together. but
wholly the result of a family arrangement. Mrs. Gordon had,
during the last twelve years, resided with her brother-in-
law, Mr. Fadhenille, and her sister, Mr. Fadbenille's wife.
Mr. Fadhenille had resided for some time at No. 114, London-
road, in this town, and had been in the habit of letting lodg-
ings. It would appear that about the end of July last, the
prisoner at the bar, who was a jeweller and picture dealer,
living in Liverpool, had come to lodge at his house. Shortly
after, he began to pay particular attentions to Mrs. Gordon,
who was a lady of some personal attractions, of the age of
twenty-six, and bad, in fact, offered her many presents of
dresses, jewellery, a gold watch, a diamond ring, and several
other matters which were generally acceptable to the female
sex. Some of these she had accepted, and others she de-
clined, and he (the learned counsel) believed that amongst
others she had accepted the ring. She had either refused to
accept the watch and jewellery, or she had returned them ;
but some articles of dress she had also received. Having
gone on in this way for some time, it appeared plain that he
wished to obtain possession of her person. However, he had
not succeeded until he resorted to means the nature of which
would be detailed. The 21st of August had fallen upon a
Friday, and, on that day, the prisoner was out and did not
return until two o'clock on the morning of Saturday, when
he was let in by Mr. Fadenhille, who had not been in the
habit of entrusting the key of the house to the servant. He
(Mr. S.) would here state to the jury the manner in which
the bed-rooms were situated. The prisoner occupied the
parlour on the first floor, and he also occupied the bed-room
on that floor. Mr. and Mrs. Fadhenille likewise occupied a
sleeping-room nearly on the same floor, and Mrs. Gordon
slept in the room over that of Mr. and Mrs. Fadenbille. The
servant belonging to the house slept upon a floor which was
nearly the same as that in which Mrs. Gordon slept, there
being only a few steps to go from the one room to the other ;
and upon the night of the occurrence in question, Mrs. Gor-
don had a little child of her own sleeping with her, who was
about seven years of age. Mr. Fadhenille, big lot the
prisoner in, (who was the worse for liquor) went to bed and
tell asleep. Mrs. Gordon would tell the jury that she had
been suddenly awakened by findine some one on her who
had in part gained possession of her person. She imme-
diately screamed, but he persisted, and having put his
hand on her mouth to prevent her from giving an alarm,
made use of the words " now 1 have you," and then
proceeding with what he had been doing, and accom-
plished his purpose. The screams of the lady awoke the
servant, and also her brother-in-law and sister. Mr. Fad-
henille immediately got out of bed and went up stairs to his
sister-in-law's room, but as he was going up, after he had
heard the first scream, he then heard other screams. W het,
he reached the door of the room he cried out " Eliza! what
is this ?" upon which she replied, "here's Mr. Hart here,"
and Mr. F. then entered the i oom. When he got in Mr. Hart
was not on the bed ; his trowsers were up, which before had
been down ; and Mr. Fadhenille asked him what right he
had to be there. Mr. Hart replied, that " he had mistaken
the room from having taken too much liquor," on which he
left the apartment, and shortly after Mrs. Gordon went down
stairs to her sister. These were the circumstances which
the jury would have detailed to them by the lady herself. He
(Mr. S.) understood that the defence which would be set up
would be to the effect, that Mrs. Gordon had yielded to the
solicitations of the prisoner at the bar; that they had had
connection together at different places, among the rest at the
" White Bear," and some tea gardens, and that the occur-
rence which had taken place on the night in question, was
the result of an assignation actually made with the lady for
the purpose. If such were the case, it would, doubtless, ap-
pear very extraordinary to the jury that she should be so
alarmed at his coming, and that she should have tried to
scream; and if connection had previously taken place, that
she should have persisted, as she had done, in making the
present charge against him, particularly as he had explained
to a certain extent the reason of his being in the room on the
night of the 21st of August, by saying that it was a mistake.
Then, if she really had been the guilty person alleged, there
was no occasion for her to make the outcry by screaming
and awaking the family. But the matter had not stopped
here. The next morning the prisoner met Mrs. Gor-
don on the stairs, and said it would be a very serious bu-
siness if brought forward, and made a proposal that she
should go and live with him. This she rejected, but had she
assented, and gone to live with him, the fact would he of con-
siderable service to the prisoner on the present trial. Mr.
Fadhenille then went into his breakfast-room, when the pri-
soner wished to make some explanation, but Mr. Fadhenille
cut him short by asking him, if he meant' to say that he had
any right to go into Mrs. Gordon's room. The pris"ner ad-
mitted that he had, whereupon Mr. Fadheuille said that he
had behaved himself like a blackguard in the house, and
that like a blackguard he should leave it ; and the conse-
quence' was, that the prisoner left as soon as he could on the
same morning. Those were the circumstances of the case,
and from the short statement, he (Mr. S.) had now made,
it
would appear the question would resolve.
itself into one of
credit, between the allegations of Mr. Hart and the evidence
of Mrs. Gordon. Thus far the facts were clear, and if they
were true, could there be a doubt, with respect' to the pri-
soner's conduct towards her, that' from a very earliydetaimoef
after he entered the house, he had entertained the
getting possession of her person ? The case would then
form the subject of examination and cross-examination, but
that he even had gained possession of her person by fair
means, he (the learned counsel) utterly denied. She admit.
ted being at different places, going to take* a dinner or
luncheon at the " White Bear," and being in a room
with him alone ; she also admitted being at tea-gar-
dens with him, but she denied that any criminal con-
versation had taken place between them on those occa-
sions, and this denial would be borne oat by facts,
and probabilities. It would be shewn that the prisoner's in-
tentions were manifest from the first ; and it was not im-
probable that he, not having previously effected his purpose,
but being warmed with wine on the night of the occurrence,
might have made an attack upon her when he went into her
room under the circumstances mentioned, and it was also
improbable, in case the lady had been in the practice of en-
joying the illicit amour before, that.she should have insisted
o el d t nowile callte
on following up the present parodsewcuhteinont.heyHheawd
detailed the
facts, witnesses before them, n
facts, his duty should have been performed.
Mrs. Elizabeth Gordon
wastheenreldaellneede.
with She
considerablewa s e r y
spectably attired, and gave her
coolness and self-possession. She presented a somewhat
handsome and intelligent cast of countenance. Her evi-
dence was as follows:—Is a married woman, and was living
at No. 114, London-road, in August last, with her brother-
in-law, Mr. Fadhenille, who had married her sister. They
were married together about fourteen years. Witness was
residing with them in London-road from the month of
February preceding the occurrence,. and will be married ten
and her
.marriage took place in
years in September. She married a Mr. Gordon, the son of
Major Gordon, of Bristol,
Edinburgh. She had only one child, who was about six
years of age at present. Shortly after her marriage her hus-
band went to London about some money affairs that he had
with his brother, but, after having corresponded with her for
about two years, he went abroad. and she had not met him
again until after the lapse of seven years. Her brother hav-
ing then found him in London she went to live with him again,
and stopped with him about 5 months. When. she married him
he had just come from the colle.ge at Cambridge, and he had
been a tutor for some years in London. After his return
from abroad he had income enough to support her and the
child, but, before he had been discovered by her brother, she
thought perhaps that he had forgotten her. Mr. Fadhenille
lived in Scotland in 1836, and she resided with him there.
Mr. Fadhenille was a wine merchant, and had a divan in
Edinburgh, which was a most respectable and fashionable
resort. When she left Scotland she went to Gartside-street,
in Manchester, where she lived with Mr. Fadhenille, who
carried on the business of a wine merchant there. He also
took premises In King-street, which he fitted up as a re-
spectable French Coffee-house, hut did not occupy them for
any length of time. Witness first began to get acquainted
with the prisoner in the month of July last. It was then she
saw him for the fist time, at her brother-in-law's house in
London-road. He came about two o'clock in the day to take
the apartments, and she had never seen him before that.
Her brother-in-law had a bill in the window, with the word
" apartments" on it. She could could not say whether " apart-
ments for single gentlemen" was onit or not, but she re-
collected that those words were at one time on it. He then
closed an agreement for the apartments, and on the Bth he
came to reside. He had no servants, but, having brought
his clothes with him, he occupied the drawing-room flat a.)
a bed-room. This bed-room communicated-with his sitting.
room. there being a door from the one apartment into tfic

otner. Witness slept in a room which was one fight of
stairs above that of the prisoner; and also above that in
which her brother-in-law slept. Her room was at the back
of the house. They had only one servant at the time of the
occurrence, and her room was above that of the prisoner's.
The servant's name was Margaret Waterson. On the 21st
of August, witness had been across the water in Cheshire.
Her brother-in-law and sister accompanied her. She dined
before she went ; and they went there to spend the afternoon,
it being the summer season. They returned home about
dark, but she could not be positive about the exact time.
She was very much fatigued after her excursion across the
water, and retired to bed about half-past eleven o'clock.
Her child, who was then about seven years of age, slept
with her. The child had always been in the habit of sleeping
with her. She fell asleep immediately after getting to bed.
She had not seen the prisoner on the evening of that day
after she got horny, but knew that he had come in to dine
before they went to Cheshire. He had always wished to
dine with the family, but on that day he dined by himself.
After she went to bed and had fallen asleep, she heard no
noise. The first thing by which she had been awakened was
by the prisoner. He was in the bed. The prosecutrix
having here described the situation of the prisoner and the
nature of the offence, proceeded :—See could not say posi-
tively where he had his arms, but he either had them in her
breast or on some part of her person. He was under the
cloths, and had nothing but his trousers on. At the first
alarm she screamed, but the prisoner put his hand over her
mouth and pressed down with all his face. She still conti-
nued screaming until her brother-in-law came to the door.
When he had his hand on her mouth she thinks he either
said—" 1 have you now," or—" 1 have got you now." It
was not perfectly dark when her brother-in-law came up ;
daylight was coining. Her brother-in-law said outside the
door—" Eliza, what is this ? " The prisoner then got out of
bed, and in an instant her brother-in-law was in the room.
She thinks he said to the prisoner " What. are you doing
here, Mr. Hart ? " She cannot recollect what answer Mr.
Hart made, but her brother-in-law put him out of the room
by, she thinks, the arm. The servant-girl did not come down
stairs. When the prisoner left the room, prosecutrix instantly
got outof bed and went down to her sister, and stated to her
what had taken place. After remaining with her sister for
half an hour, she returned to her bed, and saw no more of
the prisoner for that night. That was the first occasion on
which the prisoner had ever possession of her person, or cri-
minal connexion with her, and this she positively swears.
On the next morning she saw him on the landing of his
our drawing-room, and at the time she was going down to
her sister's apartment, he said he wished to speak to her.
She said " she had nothing to say to him." He then said,
alluding to the night before, " this will be a very serious
crime if you bring it against me." She then informed him
again that she had nothing to say to him, and she did not
recollect that he had said anything else to her. She did not
breakfast that morning at all, being too unwell from the bad
usage she had received from the prisoner the night before.
She did not know where the prisoner breakfasted that morn-
ing, but be left the house that day, perhaps about one o'clock,
baggage and all. She saw him again when he returned for
something he had left behind. She saw him on this occasion
as she was coming out of her sister's room, and she thinks
he repeated the same words as he passed her, namely, not to
bring the case against him ; but she thinks she did not see
him again after that. She went as soon as she was able,
which was about six o'clock that evening, to a lawyer ; the
matter was heard before Mr. Rushton either on the Wednes-
day or the Thursday following, and upon that occasion she
had been cross-examined by Mr. Wilkins. She had received
some presents from the prisoner while he had been at her
brother-in-law's house. He made her a present of a
bonnet, a cap, and a ring, and he had offered her a
watch, but she had not accepted it. She walked with the
prisoner on two or three occasions in company with her
brother-in-law and sister, and once she walked with him
alone. Upon the occasion that she walked with him alone,
they went together to a public-house in the country where
they had tea. Nothing criminal took place there. She
dined with him once at the " White Bear." This occurred
about a fortnight perhaps after he had come to her brother-
in-law's house. At the " White Bear" they dined together
in the public room. They did not go up stairs together after
dinner, but they went into a private room at the back to take
fruit and wine. The door of that room was not locked, and
no connection took place there. After dining at the " White
Bear" they went straight home together—but having passed
a shop on the way where artificial flowers were sold, he
bought some for her. She never made any assignation that
the prisoner should come to her room on the night of the
assault ; and she never allowed or authorised him to come
into her bed-room in the manner he had done.

Cross-examined by Mr. WlLKlNS—Witness has been
married nine years to her husband, and has been living with
him for the last five months, but has not resided with him
more than a year altogether since her marriage; never lived
with iiim longer than five months at any one time. Was
married in South David-street, Edinburgh, in her brother-
in-law's house, by Dr. Ritchie, according to the rights of the
Church of Scotland, and by special license. Her brother-
in-law kept a cigar divan in Edinburgh, where young gentle-
men played cards, but prosecutrix was never seen by them ;
her sister had put a gentleman of the name of
Barge out of their house in Manchester because he
came there uninvited, and also because he was a bad
character •, in about three weeks afterwards the prisoner
came to lodge with them, her brother-in-law told herself of
her sister that he had heard very bad reports of him. Had
once told the prisoner she was a widow, but immediately after
told him the contrary ; the prisoner had never paid atten-
tions, or affected to court her. It was at the Wavertree
Coffee-house they had taken tea together. When she went
to the " White Bear" she met the prisoner near the Rail-
way, about five o'clock in the day, and as she was going to
the market for provisions for dinner ; was an hour and a
half in the back room of the " White Bear," during which
they were alone together; does not recollect that there was a
sofa or couch in that room ; the prisoner left his pocket-
book there after him, and opened the door for the servant to
come in while they had been sitting these. After leaving the
" White Bear" the prisoner purchased the artificial flowers
and two collars for her ; she did not tell Mr. or Mrs,
Fadhenille that she had been at the " White Bear ;" the pri-
soner paid £3 for a bonnet, and 30s. for a cap for her on the
day they went together to Wavertree; he had also given her
a ring, and offered to make her a present of a watch ; she
slept on the night of this occurrence in a French bed ; there
was a fastening to her bed-room door, but no lock ; it was
not fastened on the night in question ; wears a night gown in
bed ; screamed out " Oh, murder!" as loud as she was
able, when she found out what had occurred; the servant's
room was only five or six steps from her own ; was upon oc-
casions in the prisoner's shop alone, and went into his
picture gallery while he conversed with a gentleman ; went
into a Mrs. Williamson's house in Manchester, dressed in
man's clothes.

In answer to the JUDGE, the witness stated her child was
isleep the whole of the time Mr. Hart was in the room, un-
til he was put out of the room by Mr. Fadhenille. Her child
was not with her at the tea-drinking at Wavertree Coffee-
house.

Valentine Bernard Fadhenille was the next witness called

He said he had left No. 114, London-road. and now resided
.t Martin's Cottage, Liscard. He was a wine merchant.

'he witness then described respectively the position of Mrs

Gordon's, Mr. Hart's, the servant's, a-nd his.own rooms, and
stated that he first became acquainted with the prisoner at
the British Hotel, in May last. He then narrated the cir-
cumstances of the prisoner coming home at two o'clock in
the morning, of his being awoke by a scream from Mrs. Gor-
don, of his finding the prisoner in her room, and generally
confirmed her account. He also, by request, imitated the
screams which be heard issuing from Mrs. Gordon.
The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.

He said he went out in the morning about ten o'clock, and
left Mr. Hart in the house. Witness refused to lend him a
razor as he requested, and sent him in his bill, which he paid.
Witness in going into the town met Mr. Gaskill, agent to the
Times, [London] who asked him to go to Chester, as he
thought he could get him an order from some innkeeper there
for some wine. Witness went to Chester, and returned about
eleven at night and went home.
Mrs. Jane Fadhenille, wife of the last witness, gave simi-
lar testimony to that of her husband.

On being cross-examined, the witness said she knew of her
ister having received some b mall presents from Mr. Hart ;
Lmt would swear her sister had never been dressed up in man's
Jothes in Manchester.

Margaret Waterson said she was servant at Mr. Fad-
henille's at the time of this occurrence. She said she was
awoke by Mr. Hart knocking at the front door, but fell asleep
immediately afterwards. She was again awoke by a scream
from Mrs. Gordon, and heard all that took place afterwards.
Her account of the transaction was substantially the same as
that given by the preceding witnesses. She added that she
had now left Mr. Fadhenille's service, and was living with
Mrs. Belshaw, in Everton. Mr. Johnson, a friend of Mr.
Hart's, had called upon her there and offered her any money
not to appear against him, hut Mr. Hart had not asked her.
Mr. STARKIE said this was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. WILKINS then rose to address the jury on behalf of
the prisoner. He was quite sure they had paid the greatest
possible attention to the case throughout ; and with that as-
surance upon his mind he had very little doubt as to what
their verdict, upon due deliberation, would be. Whatever
their verdict might be, the consequences which had already
fallen upon his unhappy client, he was afraid a long life of
industry would never retrieve. This circumstance occurred
to him some six months ago. Being at that time engaged in
a respectable way of trade, he (Mr. Wilkins) need hardly tell
the jury that the consequences to him must have been most
disastrous. He (the learned counsel) thought he was not
asking too much when he asked the jury to believe that his
client had suffered all these consequences on account of the
duplicity, the dishonesty, and the tricks of an unchaste and
libidinous woman. He (the learned counsel) was not one
who would wantonly assail the character of another, much
less the character of a woman, and of a married woman ; but
when he had a duty to perform, such as that which now de-
volved upon him, he was obliged to set aside all the minor
obstacles presented in private life, and look straightforward
to the truth as it presented itself to his view. Whatever might
be his own feeling, whatever his natural repugnance to such a
mode of proceeding might be, it was a matter of necessity to lay
before them, as far as he could, every fact, stripped of decep-
tion, sophism, and misrepresentation, in order that they might
see it in its proper point of view. Let him ask them, as men of
the world, to take a fair straightforward view of the case. In
the first place, he called their attention to the evidence of the
servant who last was in the box. It might be true, as she
said, that Mr. Johnson had done what hundreds of foolish
men before him had done ; it might be true that he, in his
anxiety to serve the cause of Mr. Hart, iu his dread lest the
consequences of such an accusation might fall upon the head
of Mr. Hart—it was by no means improbable that Mr.
Johnson had played the part of a great fool, and made offers
which he ought not to have made. But there was no proof
that;Mr. Hart ever sanctioned or authorised those offers.
The inference was the other way, because when Mr. Hart
was present there was no proof he ever hinted or suggested
at such a thing ; and, although it was competent for his
' learned friend to have got the whole conversation between
Mr. Hart and the servant girl, there was not one tittle of
evidence to prove that he either hinted at, suggested, pro-
posed, or held out inducements to or made offers to prevent
her giving her testimony. He (the learned counsel) need
not hardly tell the jury that what was done by a third party
in Mr. Hart's absence Mr. Hart was by no means respon-
sible for. It was no evidence against him ; and he was con-
vinced the jury would see the good sense of the rule of law
made in such a case, because, if what another man did
in the absence of the accused party was to bind him
without the proof of aut!ority for so doing, then no man was
safe ; all must be open to attacks, and the worst attacks
which could befal us—the attacks of folly and the designs 91
knavery. But there was another circumstance, to which his
mind being first called,he would point the attention of the jury
When was it that the affair took place of which the witnesses
had spoken? At two o'clock on Saturday morning. Was
Mr. Hart afraid of the parties ? was he anxious to bring them
off? was he afraid of the consequences of his conduct ? W hy,
it was not till the Thursday afterwards that he was taken
before the magistrates. Mrs. Gordon said she went to an
attorney. He (Mr. Wilkins) wished that attorney had been
produced, as he should then have been enabled to see what
her object was—whether it was not to extort money from
Mr. Hart; and he would appeal to the jury whether the
lapse of time which had occurred between Saturday and
Thursday would not justify that inference and presumption What did Mr. Fadhenille say ? was he a monster . ? h id; he
the common feelings of humanity? Suppose the woman sad
been his servant-maid instead of his sister-in.law—suppose
it had been the last witness put into the box instead of Mrs.
Gordon—was an order for a dozen or a case of champagne
a matter of such importance to Mr. Fadhenille, that he could
leave at home the ravisher and destroyer of his sister because
Mr. Gaskell met him in Lord-street, and asked him to go
to Chester, upon the speculation that if he went he could get
an order ? Was that the conduct of a man who believed his
sister ravished? Was there a man in the court, so degraded
by ignoretnoe, nay, blackened by (Time, NO devoid r'f human

kali-Lags, so diveateai of tha h.est impulsai a humanity; that,
if they had had their sister ravished, would have gone away—
for remember Mr. Fadhenille left his sister in the house with
her ravisher by her side—with the excuse that he was gone
to Chester to have the chance of getting an order for a case
of Champagne. Could they under such circumstances be-
lieve that Mr. Fadhenille thought his sister had been ra-
vished ? If they did, he thought no man henceforward would
be seen in company with Mr. Fadhenille. If, upon the
morning, he thought his sister had been ruined, stripped of
character, shut out from the presence and society of all whom
she felt dear—if he had gone away under the circumstances
described, by heaven he (Mr. Wilkins) would not be seen
with that man in the worst society or in the lowest establish-
ment in the kingdom. Let him now take the jury onwards.
Having disposed of this part or the c se he would comment
a little further upon the testimony of the servant girl. She
said she heard a scream. Mr. Fadhenille heard no scream.
Mr. Fadhenille was awake, upon the stairs at Mrs. Gordon's
door before the servant girl heard anything, and he heard no
scream. He (Mr. 'Wilkins) would fain have left the case at
the close of Mr. Fadhenille's evidence, for he had unlocked
the whole mystery when he described the noise which he
heard first. [The learned gehtleman here commented upon
the nature of the noises or screams, and attributed them to
the nature of the circumstances in which Mrs. Gordon was
placed.] Let him now look at the conduct of Mrs. Gordon.
She said she was a married woman : her husband, she said,
was an undergraduate of Cambridge University, and that he
was the son of a Major Gordon. There could be no doubt,
if what she stated was true, he was a young man of respect-
able family, in a respectable state of society, with the means
of obtaining a genteel livelihood. Why then had he left her?
They had been married nine Nears, during which they had
never lived together for more than five months at a time ;
but that whilst the husband had been engaged in the honour-
able and proper pursuit of instruction and education, she was
peeping through the hole of a cigar divan, and waiting upon
the roueB and profligates of Edinburgh and Manchester.
The jury knew, perhaps, what cigar divans were. A large
room, fitted up in a tempting way, where you got a cup of
good coffee at one end, and saw smart ladies sitting in a state
of demi-nudity at the other end. That was what was meant
by a cigar divan ;—it was, in fact, a place to make tobacco
smoking as palatable as it could, in order to induce young
men, who had pleasurable pursuits, to frequent such haunts.
But why had she not lived with her husband? had that been
satisfactorily explained? Certainly not. And it was most
extraordinary—indeed it added to the mystery—that since ,1
this rape. (if rape it was) had been committed, her husband,
who before had been living away from her, should have se-
lected this very period to come back to live with her. This
circumstance added to the mystery of the transaction, and it
was one which would have its weight with the jury. But he
would go onward. The learned counsel then proceeded
to comment upon the fact of Mrs. Fadhenille having in her
window the advertisement, "Lodgings for single gentlemen,"
and on Mr. Fadhenille having cautioned his wife and sister
against Mr. Hart, as a dissipated character, immediately after
the lodging had been let to him. Yet, notwithstanding his
caution, Mrs. Gordon, unkrown to her sister and brother,
went out alone with Mr. Hart, at half-past five in the even-
ing to a public house in the country. She drank tea with
this man of bad character, against whom she had been cau-
tioned, without any protector, in a private room, in a public
house, in the couutry. The same day, lie having been only
a fortnight in the house, she accepted from him a bonnet,
which cost three guineas, and a cap which cost thirty shil-
lings ! Why, who was Mrs. Gordon ? If she had been the
servant maid of the inn, or a single woman, arid accepted
these things, he should not have thought the better of her
then : he should not have thought her a prudent woman,
but a woman who had no great regard for her reputation ;
but who was she ? She was the wife of an undergraduate
of the University of Cambridge—the wife of a respectable
man—a woman married into a respectable family, and also
with a child looking up to her for example. Yet, this wo-
man, with all these facts connected with her character, a
fortnight only after she knew him, accepted presents from
him, which indicated to every man that an intimacy had
began, which continued to the end of this transaction . On
another occasion, she went to the market at twelve o'clock.
She met Mr. Hart—against whom she had been cautioned—
and went with him to the White Bear, in Dale-street. The
learned counsel then commented upon all the circumstances
which took place at the tavern, and argued, that they proved
criminal connection had taken place there. He next dwelt
upon the improbability of the offence having been com-
mitted against Mrs. Gordon's consent, without awakening
the child, which was in bed with her. The learned counsel,
in conclusion, contended, that in the first instance, the con-
duct of all the parties proved them to be thoroughly con-
vinced that no such crime had been committed as that of
which the prisoner was accused ; and that it was only brought
to rescue Mrs. Gordon's character from the charge of un-
cleanness and immodesty, which must of necessity, attach
to it.

The learned JUDGE that summed up, but in so low a tone
as scarcely to be heard.
The jury after a consultation of four minutes, returned a
verdict of Not Guilty.

Mr, WILKINS applied for the immediate discharge of Mr
Hart.

The JUDGE having assented he was forthwith set at liberty

CHARGE OF RAPE NEAR DOLTON

Georgs Jackson, 39, was indicted for having feloniously
ravished and carnally known one Margaret Lever.
Mr. Brandt prosecuted : the prisoner was defended by
Mr. Wilkins.

Flom the evidence it appeared that prosecutrix was a mar-
ried woman living with her husband in Manchester, where
they keep a shop. The husband was addicted to liquor,
and in the habit of staying away from his home for days
together when he was under its influence. On the 15th
August last, he left his house : she followed him by the
Bolton railway till she came to a place half way between
Matichesier and Bolton, where she got sight of him, on
which he took to his heels and escaped. She applied to the
prisoner to know which way he had gone. He told her if
she would go with him he would chew her. She went with
him to Worsley, but not finding her husband there, they de-
termined to return to the public-house from which they had
started. Their road lay across some fields. When they had
passed through about three fields the prisoner told her he
must be paid for his trouble. They went a little further,
when the prisoner threw her upon the ground, and she fell
against a stone or rock which disabled her for the time ; he
_led to effect his purpose. she returned to the
and, us on the fnrm.rr occasion, she was as-
sailed with taunts from some colliers who were celebrating
the anniversary of a club. Next day The went home, thcugh
very unwell ; and when her husband returned she informed
him of what had happened. The prisoner was then appre-
hended. He is a married man with a family, and the prose-
cutrix had had ten children. Medical evidence was given of
the prosecutrix some days after the offence to the effect that
she was labouring under delirium.

then procee

Toe jury retired to consider on their verdict. After an
absence of about three gum tors of an hour, they returned
into court with a verdict of Not Guilty.

CHARGE OF RAPE AGAINST A SURGEON

Robert Hector, a surgeon, residin.. in Slater-street, and
recently in Great Ncwton-strect, was placed at the bar to
answer an indictment charging him with having committed
a rape upon the person of a married female, named Ann
Thistleton, residing in Horatio-street, in her own house, on
Sunday last. Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prisoner, and
the trial was appointed to come on this morning.
The prisoner, addressing the learned Judge, said, that as
this was a case of the greatest importance to himself and to
his family, he should feel obliged if the court would allow
him at least two days, in order to prepare for the trial.
Mr. 'WILKINS said he was counsel for the prisoner, and in
point of fact his instructions were not complete.
The JUDGE said, it was very inconvenient first to appoint
trials and then have to postpone them. He understood, be-
sides, that the prosecutrix was very ill.

Mr. WILKINS was aware that 'such applications as this
were attended with inconvenience. He had heard that the
witness was unwell, and had been so for some time ; but
from what he had heard she was not so unwell but she might
attend upon another occasion without any inconvenience.

The Ji:DoE.—lf that can be ascertained, well and good.
Mr. WILKINS informed the court that he was prepared in
:wo other cases, so that no inconvenience could arise from
,he postponement.
The JUDGE said he must have some medical testimony of
.e actual state of the woman.

Mr. MURPHY, who appeared for the prosecution, said he
nderstood it was impossible she could attend at any other

Mr. Ackerley, the medical gentleman in attendance upon
Mrs. Thistleton, was then sworn. In answer to questions
from the learned Judge and Mr. Wilkins, he stated, that she
would be in a state to appear in two days hence ; she might
probably be better.

The JUDGE said he would, on this testimony, grant the
application, but subject to there being business before the

Mr. MuaPny understood that, although the woman was
much better, she was still in a weakly condition, and it would
be advisable for her to return home.
The JUDGE.—Let her go.
Some discussion followed, and eventually the trial was ap-
pointed to take place the first on Tuesday morning.
The court adjourned at five minutes before six o'clo

The first case to be taken this morning will be that of
Robert .Anderton, 45, who is charged with the wilful murder
of John Colton, at Standish-with-Langtree, in the month of
September last. It is expected to occupy the whole day.
The prisoner is also charged with the commission of several
felonies at Pemberton.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Mr. Baron ROLFE took his seat this morning at nine
o'clock, but the business did not commence until half-past
nine, in consequence of the absence of a witness in the case.

MUNN AND OTHERS V. NEGROPONTE

The action was brought by Messrs. Munn, Pearson and
Co., cotton-print manufacturers at Manchester, to recover
from James Constantine Negroponte, a Greek merchant, re-
siding at London, the sum of £267 Is. Bd., the price of
goods bought from the plaintiffs for the defendant by Mr.
Charles Dunderdale, a broker, of Manchester.

Mr. TOIiLINSON opened the pleadings, and Mr. ALEX-
ANDER stated the case for the plaintiffs. He detailed the
amount and nature of the several orders given by Mr. Ne-
groponte to his agent, the prices at which they were pur-
chased by the latter from Messrs. Munn and Co., and the
'node in which the agent made his principal aware of all the
particulars attending the purchase. The three orders given
by the Greek merchant to the broker were respectively on
the 28th September, the 30th September, and the Ist of
October in the last year, at which time Mr. Dunderdale was
involved in difficulties. Shortly after he became a bankrupt,
and application was then made to Mr. Negroponte, as prin-
cipal, for payment. This was refused by the defendant, who
denied his liability, and expressed his determination to resist
any action brought against him. The defence seemed to be
that Mr. Dunderdale was not the agent of Mr. Negroponte;
that the plaintiffs ought therefore to look to the broker for
payment; that the defendant's name was never mentioned
to the plaintiffs ; that he was ignorant of all the transactions
between Mr. Dunderdale and Messrs. Munn and Co.; that
he had had no notice from the plaintiffs of their having had
anything to do with Mr. Dunderdale on his account ; and
that therefore he was not liable. It evidently was the defen-
dant's object to cast on to the shoulders of a bankrupt the
liability for the payment of between £2OO and £300; but
though the attempt was a clever one, he (Mr. Alexander) was
sure that it was one which the jury would not sanction.
Mr. Charles Dunderdale was called; proved the receipt of
the three orders from Mr. Negroponte for certain quantities
of power-loom cloth, amounting altogether to the sum men-
tioned : his purchase of the gdods from the plaintiffs, with-
out, however, any mention of the name of his principal ; the
transmission of the invoices and packing notes to the defen-
dant ; and the forwarding of the goods to the places of ship-
ment pointed out by him. All the invoices mentioned the
names of the sellers, and included every particular necessary
to make the defendant perfectly acquainted with the trans
actions of his agent on his behalf. In making his purchases
as agent, he (witness) frequently mentioned to the person
from whom he purchased the name of his principal ; but he
could not recollect that he had ever done so in making the
purchases for the defendant from the plaintiffs. He merely
said " I have received an order for so and so." Duplicate
invoices were always furnished : one invoice was retained by
the agent, and the other, with charges for commission, pack-
ing, interest, &c., added, transmitted to the principal. Du-
plicate invoices would not have been necessary unless in an
agency transaction. The invoices and duplicates were pro-
duced by the witness.
Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—He should cer-
tainly say that the plaintiffs were always well aware that he
was purchasing from them as an agent. He seldom men-
tioned the name of the principal, unless it was asked for.
Some houses were in the habit of asking. He believed that
Messrs. Munn did to sometimes, din those caste the in-
'reins were out in 136 (witnes's) mune. Mr. Nogroroseta

iadrit4i to hiia ;sum *-`1,64. 21

the defendant had received all the goods ci'-dereC
Witness had drawn a bill on the defendant on the
1840, for £BOO, which would cover all that was owi

then, with the exception of about :f.:40. A secoi
drawn by witness, on the 9th October, for £5Ol
cepted by Mr. Negroponte, and that of course At
than cover all that was owing up to the Ist Octohi
goods, however, not purchased fron the plaintiffs
forwarded to the defendant in the interhn, bew,
and 9th October. He (witness) invariably paid fc
chases made by him as agent. There might btu

the course of the eleven ve

instances where the principals E
drawn on them by the seller.

Re-examined —Had long b
market as tl e agent for the Lo
hich he had clone business.

Mr. Francis-Page Newmarsh•—d
Dunderdale, in London. lie cane
Gresk houses in London. solicited a

3 byThitt
Ist Oct

Nlr. D ac

copy in