The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

CHARGE OF MURDER

Nicholas Flemming, aged 22, was indicted for having, at
Manchester, on the Ist of March, wilfully murdered Cathe-
rine Demarest. The first count in the indictment charged
the murder as having been committed by shooting at the de-
ceased with a pistol, loadedand charged with paper, card, and
wadding : the second count set forth that the pistol was load-
ed with gunpowder, wadding, and a leaden bullet. The pri-
soner was also charged with murder on the inquisition taken
before Mr. Chapman, the borough coroner for Manchester,
and Mr. S. Rutter, who claimed to have jurisdiction as coro-
ner for the county.
Mr. BRANDT and Mr. MONK conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. WILKINS defended.
It was stated by the counsel for the prosecution, that it
was probable the injury which caused the death of Catherine
Demarest was inflicted by a pistol which was loaded with
powder and wadding only. The case would require the most
anxious attention of the jury, and they would probably have
to inquire, amongst other things, whether the prisoner was
in full possession of his faculties at the time when the act
was committed.
Mary Redmane stated, that she resided at No. 70, Thomp-
ion-street, Manchester, and the prisoner lived next door to
her. On Monday morning, March 1, while she was in bed,
she heard an unusual noise in the prisoner's house.. She
raised up her head to listen, and heard the screams of a fe-
male, which presently were suppressed, as if the tone were
muffled. She heard her say, " Oh, dear me !" in a tone as
if she were exhausted. The noise appeared to come from the
front room. The house was open on Monday, and not after.
On the Friday following she went into the house with the
police. The front room floor was marked with blood, but it
had evidently been washed and scoured, and sand left upon it.
There was blood in several other parts of the house. Three
persons lived in that house, Mr. and Mrs. Flemming and
Catherine Demarest.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—She was awakened by
the noise. Catherine Demarest got her living by making caps.
By the JUDGE.—She was about twenty-three years old,
and was good-looking.
Mary Lowry resided in Thompson-street, next door to the
prisoner, on the other side of Mrs. Redmane. She was
awakened on Sunday morning, the Ist of March, by a noise
in Flemming's house. She heard a great scream from a fe-
male, and heard some person exclaim either " Oh ! murder,"
or " Oh! mercy." Then followed a noise as if some one had
leaped off the bed on to the floor. She heard another scream,
and then a subdued screaming as if the person had been pre-
vented from screaming. She heard a noise of some persons,
one or two, running up and down stairs several times. She
heard the back-door open and AMA. On the Tuesday follow-
ing she observed that the house was closed. She had not ob-
served it before.
By Mr. WimaNs.—Thomas-street is a quiet, but a public
street. Flemming had always been very peaceable. She be-
lieved the prisoner was a married man : his wife resided with
him.

Mary Stock, a night-nurse, at the Manchester Infirmary.
On Sunday morning, the Ist of March, at an early hour, the
prisoner at the bar, and a woman whom she had since learned
was Catherine Demarest, came to the Manchester Infirmary.
She was bleeding very profusely from a wound in her fore-
head and at her nose. Witness asked her what was the mat-
ter. She said she was shot by a gun. Witness asked wheke
she was at the time. She said; "Oh ! 1 was in the bed."
Witness asked her who shot her. She or the prisoner re-
plied, "We don't know." She (witness) asked who were in
the house. The prisoner replied, " None, but my wife and
myself, and her" (the deceased.) She said her bed-room
door was shut, but not fastened. Witness asked, if they
went to bed and left the house door unfastened. The pri-
soner said she was the last up. She said, " I was the last up,
but the door was fast enough." The prisoner, in reply to a
question from the nurse; said, the girl was a widow ; he and
his wife slept in one rocm and the deceased in another. The
deceased had on her night-gown, chemise, cloak, and a pair
of old shoes. The prisoner had on only his trowsers and
coat and top-coat. He had come out without his trowsers
braced.
Thomas Crompton stated, that in March last he was an
in-patient at the Manchester Infirmary. He was called into
the kitchen there on the morning of the first of March. He
saw the prisoner and Catherine Demarest. She was bleed-
ing profusely. She said, in reply to a question from him,
that a man had shot her; and the prisoner, who was very
much agitated, said it was done by a man in a long top coat.
Mrs. Stock recalled.—She thought the girl was the pri-
soner's wife, because he was so very kind and affectionate
towards her, often repeating the words, " Catherine, my
dear."

Mary Williams, another nurse at the Infirmary, stated,
that Catherine Demarest made a statement to her.
Before this evidence was allowed, the house surgeon at
the Infirmary, William Smith, was called. He stated, that
he attended the deceased till her death. She had received a
small wound on the forehead. Her eyelashes, and her eyes,
and the right side of her face were scorched and marked
with gunpowder. He was of opinion, that the wound on the
forehead had been caused by wadding. The pistol must have
been fired in a slanting direction. The wound could not
have been caused by a bullet. The wound was not dangerous
at first. On Friday, the 6th of March, symptoms of locked-
jaw were manifested, and on Sunday they were quite con-
firmed, and he then knew there was no chance for her life.
She died on Tuesday morning, the 10th of March. He
examined her body after death, which he attributed to locked-
jaw, occasioned by the wound on the head. She might have
fancied that she had a bullet in her head, but he never heard
her express such a fancy. He thought she was never con-
vinced that she should not recover till the day preceding her
death, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, when
he informed her that he thought she would not recover.
Cross-examined by Mr. 'Wtmcms.—He had made up his
mind, on Sunday, that she would not recover, and he in-
formed the magistrates on Monday. Had read cases of
somnambulism. He had beard of acts being done in sleep
as extraordinary as if this act had been committed during
sleep.
By the JUDGE.—He could not say, positively, that she was
convinced she should die after he told her.
Mary Williams (examination continued.)—When the girl
asked her, which she did frequently, if she thought she would
get better, witness told her that she thought she would. The
deceased several times said she was afraid she would die, as
she was sure there was a ball in her head. After Mr. Smith,
the surgeon, had told her that she could not recover, she did
not express herself more strongly on the subject.
The above witness was called to prove the statement of
the deceased. As it could not be proved that deceased was
under immediate apprehension of death at the time, the evi-
dence could not be received.
Ann Shore stated, that she knew the deceased and the pri-
soner at the bar. She saw the latter on the Thursday. He
came out of his house% with two pieces of bedstocks on his
shoulders. They were removing from the house, which they
left on Wednesday.
David Lipsett, an inspector of police, at Manchester,
stated, that he apprehended the prisoner on the sth of March,
at Manchester, at a house in Fetter-lane. He stated that
his name was John Flemming, and that he resided in Hunt-
street. Witness was in search of Nicholas Flemming, and,
not finding any one named John Flemming, he took him,
telling him that he suspected that he was Nicholas Flemming.
The prisoner said, " You are right." He added, that he
could not tell what made him do it ;it was a bad job. He
did not know what made him do it; he knew nothing of it
till he was awakened by the report of a pistol, and found her
in his arms. He volunteered all this. He was going further,
when witness told him it was a serious charge, and he might
have to give it in evidence against him. The prisoner asked
if witness was aware that any ball was found, as he did not
know that there was any ball in the pistol. Witness had not
mentioned the charge to him.
Cross-examined.—The prisoner was very miserable when
he found him. He said he was more sorry on account of his
wife and the deceased than for himself. His wife and he
were exceedingly affectionate to each other.
Melville Burton, an inspector of police, at Manchester,
stated, that, on the day when he was taking the prisoner to
the inquest, he said he did not think what was in the pistol
could have shot her; there was nothing like a bullet in his
house. He had purchased the pistols in Ireland, and thrown
them away on the Leeds Railway.
By Mr. WILKINS.—When told by witness that the young
woman was dead, he fainted away. On his recovery he ex-
claimed, " Oh ! my God, what have I done—what have I
brought her to."
Mr. WiLxiNs addressed the jury for the defence. He said
he approached the case with more than ordinary anxiety, as
he as firmly believed in the innocence of his unfortunate
client as he did in his own existence. He was about to set
up a most extraordinary defence, but unfortunately he was
crippled, as the only witness who could be called to corro-
borate the prisoner's story was his broken-hearted wife,
whom the law did not allow to be called. The defence set up
by the learned counsel was, that the prisoner had committed
the act in a fit of somnambulism. He remarked on the im-
probability of the prisoner committing such an act in his
senses, as no motive whatever could be found to account for
it. He commented on the anxiety and affectionate solicitude
for the unfortunate girl as proofs of the truth of his story.
Mr. Wilkins was about to read some extracts from Mac-
nish's Philosophy of Sleep, for the purpose of showing what
extraordinary acts had been committed during the state of
somnambulism, when
Mr. BRANDT, though he expressed himself loath to inter-
fere, objected. He said he would not, in this particular
case, press the objection, if his lordship thought fit.
His LORDSHIP said, it was better to be strictly regular.
His LORDSHIP, after a brief charge to the jury, concluded

by saying, that, under the extraordinary circumstances of the
case, he thought the safest verdict the jury could find would
be not guilty. He did not wish to take the case out of the
hands of the jury, but if they agreed with him, it would save
the time necessary to go through the evidence.
The jury acquitted the prisoner.
WOUNDING. . .

William Bradshaw, aged 22, was charged with having, at
Widnes, in July last, cut and wounded William Radcliff.
There were counts in the indictment charging the offence to
be with intent to murder, do grievous bodily harm, &c.
Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Murphy,
for the defence.

William Radcliff, the person stabbed, is a gamekeeper in
the service of Mr. Crosthwaite, whose estate is called Widnes.
The prisoner was connected with a gang of poachers, some
of whom Radcliff had assisted in capturing and taking to
Kirkdale Gaol. It did not appear that the prisoner himself
had been addicted to poaching. On the 18th of July last,
the prisoner found Radcliff on the road. The prisoner said
he was a poacher, which the prosecutor denied. He then
challenged him to fight, and became exceedingly insulting,
and at length, after the parties had nearly come to blows, he
stabbed the prosecutor in his back. He called out for help,
and was taken back to a public-house, from which he had
first departed. The blood was overflowing from his shoes,
and he was fainting from exhaustion.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with in-
tent to do grievous bodily harm.
His LORDSHIP passed sentence of transportation for life.
FALSE REGISTRY OF DEATH.

Samuel Stretch, aged 49, was charged with having, in
this town, in the month of October last, unlawfully made a
false statement touching the particulars required to be known
and registered in the Register of Deaths, in the District of
Great Howard-street, in this town, respecting the alleged
death of Elizabeth Stretch. The prisoner pleaded guilty and
begged for mercy.
Mr. CROMPTON, who appeared for the prosecution, said,
many cases of this description had occurred, and the prisoner
was prosecuted as an example, in the hope that others would
be deterred from the commission of this offence. In con-
sideration, however, of the very long imprisonment which he
had already endured, he would recommend him to his lord-
ship's favourable consideption. . .

A gentleman named Rigg, who was espied by the prisoner
in the court, was called upon to give him a character. Mr.
Rigg said he had known the prisoner many years, and he had
always considered him honest and industrious.
His LORDSHIP said, this was an offence which must be
put down. Now, that it bad become the law of the country
that registers of births and deaths should be kept, it was of
importance that they should be kept perfect. As it appeared
very satisfactorily, by the testimony of a witness challenged,
as it were, by the prisoner, and not brought there by the
prisoner, that he bore a good character, he should take that
and the long imprisonment which he had already suffered
into consideration. The prisoner was sentenced to six weeks'
imprisonment in Kirkdale Gaol.
CHARGE OF FORGERY.

Thomas Arthur Barfield, a very respectable-looking young
man, aged 23, was charged with having feloniously forged
and uttered a certain paper in writing, purporting to be a
recommendation from the Reverend Edward Girdlestone,
vicar of the parish of Deane, and an undertaking from him to
be answerable for rent, &c. on behalf of the prisoner.
Mr. Lawrence Peel prosecuted, Dr. Brown defended.
In the month of June, 1839, the prisoner was recommended
by the National School Society to the Rev. Mr. Girdlestone,
to fill the office of head-master of the school of Deane. For
some reason, not mentioned, he quitted the neighbourhood
in the ensuing November. He wished to become the tenant
of a house, at Markland Hill, belonging to Mr. Thomas
Markland, of Bolton. He applied to Mr. Girdlestone for
such a character as would satisfy Mr. Markland of his eligi-
bility to become a tenant, the latter requiring some guarantee
or recommendation from him. Mr. Girdlestone refused to
give him a character, on the ground that he was, with the
exception of the recommendation from the committee of the
National School Society, a perfect stranger, and he was not
in the habit of giving such recommendations to the masters.
The prisoner, it appeared, afterwards went to Mr. Markland
with a written recommendation, couched in glowing terms of
eulogy on the prisoner's character and attainments, and pro-
mising to become security for the rent. The prisoner obtained
possession of the house, and remained in it some time, when
it was discovered that the recommendation and guarantee
_ _

had not been written by Mr. Girdlestone.
On cross-examination by Dr. BROWN, Mr. Girdlestone
said, the prisoner was married, and had, when head-master
of Deane school, £35 per annum. He would not say that he
was a young man of considerable attainments, but he was a
young man of considerable professions. He was an artist,
and had taken a portrait of him (Mr. Girdlestone.) He
taught his daughter to write. He (Mr. Girdlestone) knew
that the prisoner was wishful, and had intended, to commence
a boarding-school, and both he and his curate were referees
as to the prisoner's complete competency for this undertaking.
Dr. BROWN took an objection to the instrument, that it
was not such an instrument as rendered the prisoner liable to
be indicted for forgery, nor such an one as bore out the term
guarantee used in the indictment. '
His LORDSHIP held the objection to be valid, and a ver-
dict of acquittal under this indictment was taken.
There was another indictment against the prisoner for hav-
ing obtained four works from John Heaton, a bookseller, of
Bolton, under pretence that they were for Mr. Girdlestone.
Mr. Heaton supplied books for the library of the school at
Deane. The prisoner was, during the time he was master of
the school, in the habit of purchasing books on account of the
Deane school, and also on account of Mr. Girdlestone. On
the 13th August last, he went to Mr. Heaton's shop and or-
dered several articles, amongst which were some works on
natural history. On the following Monday he called, and in-
quired if the bookseller had received back the books on na-
tural history, and selected better books as those were not
approved of by Mr. Girdlestone. He selected Goldsmith's
work on Animated Nature, and directed it to be placed to
the Deane school account. He took the books away with
him. The prisoner had a private account of his own. Mr.
Girdlestone stated, that the prisoner had no right to purchase
books for the library. At the time when the prisoner pro-
cured these books, Mr. Girdlestone was absent in Devonshire.
The prisoner was apprehended on the 9th Dec. He had with
him at the time, a man who carried his box, and it was stated
by the police-officer, that he was at the time absconding.
The four volumes of Goldsmith's work were found in the
box.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.
The court adjourned at half-past seven o'clock, to Monday
morning.
The felony cases having been all disposed of, the trials of
the chartists commence on Monday.

NISI PRIUS COURT—SATURDAY.
ASSAULT.-DEANS V. EDWARDS AND OTHERS.
This was an action of assault, in which William Deane
was plaintiff, and Jonathan Edwards and William and Amy
Reed were the defendants. _

Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Creswell and Mr. Cromp-
ton; for the defendants, Mr. Alexander.
The jury found Wm. Reed, not Guilty, Edwards apt!
Mrs. Reed, Guilty ; and the damages £3.

RAILWAY SHARES.-EELL AND OTHERS V. VERO.
In this action Mr. Thomas W►n. Bell and Mr. Arthur
Valentine, the assignees of the estate and effects of Messrs.
Richardson and Thompson, bankrupts, were the plaintiffs,
and Mr. John Vero was the defendant. The action was
brought to recover the difference in value of 50 half-shares in
the Great Western Railway, alleged to have been sold by the
defendant to Messrs. Richardson and Thompson, and after-
wards withheld.

Mr. Cresell and Mr. Crompton were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the de-
fence.

Mr. CRESSWELL, in opening the case for the plaintiffs,
said, that in this action the assignees of Messrs. Richardson
and Thompson sought to recover the. damages to the estate of
the bankrupts sustained by reason of the non-fulfilment of a
contract to sell and deliver certain shares of the Great Wes-
tern Railway. The circumstances were these :—Richardson
and Thompson had been partners in trade, and Mr. Vero was
a gentleman of property in this town, but carrying on no
business, though he occasionally speculated in shares.
Messrs. Okill and Cooke, share-brokers, on the 24th Janu-
ary, 1840, entered into an agreement to sell to Messrs. Rich-
ardson and Thompson fifty hall-shares in the Great Western
Railway, on which £5 had been paid, at the rate of £3 12s. Gd.
per share, or £1 7s. Gd. discount, the purchaser to pay the
calls due, and the seller allowing interest. Messrs. Richard-
son and Thompson employed Mr. J. C. Townley, share-
broker, to call on Messrs. Okill and Cooke, and take up the
shares. On the 24th, Mr. Townley accordingly called, and
said, that, at the request of Messrs. Richardson and Thomp-
son, he had come to take up the shares, handing them his
authority. Mr. Cooke looked at the paper, and said, "It is
all right ; but our principal is not in town, and we cannot de-
liver them to you. He will, however, be in town in a few
days." Mr. Townley called again, and saw Mr. Cooke, who
said, the calls, of which none had been paid, amounted to a
considerable sum, about £2O on each half-share. Mr. T. re-
plied that he was then quite prepared to pay both the calls and
the price—that is, if the transfer were made. He, how-
ever, received the same answer, that their principal had nort
come back, and that they could not complete the transaction
until his return. A day or two after, on the 2Sth or 29th of
January, one of the firm of Richardson and Thompson, the
former he believed, committed an act of bankruptcy. On
the 31st of January Mr. Townley called again on Messrs.
Okill and Cooke, and he was then told that Mr. Vero was
the seller, and that he (Mr. Vero) had stated, that as Messrs.
Richardson and Thompson were bankrupts,. he would not
complete the transaction ; that he was not bound to deliver
the shares to bankrupts, and that he would not do so ; in
point of fact, that they ad been resold under the direction
of Mr. Vero. Richardson and Thompson having become
bankrupts, of course Mr. Townley could do no more until
assignees were appointed. They were appointed, and after-
wards Mr. Townley waited on Messrs. Okill and Cooke, and
made a formal tender of the price of shares. He received
the same answer that he had previously received, and there
was an end of the matter. The difference in value would be
this:—the shares were sold at a discount of £1 7s. 6d.: the
;first time that the defendant refused to complete the pur-
chase, they had attained a premium of £1 1(6., tasking a dif-
ference of £3 per share.
The contract having been put in,
Mr. Thomas Clarke, share-broker, was then called, and
stated that the purchase of the 50 half-shares was made on
the 20th of January, on the terms stated in the contract.
Cross-examined.—On the evening of the 20th Mr. Vero
went to Dublin, and returned on the 29th. The firm of
Richardson and Thompson had become insolvent in the
meantime. He should say that they were not insolvent until
the 24th or 25th. When Mr. Townley called, on the 24th,
no tender of the money was made, nor any transfer of the
shares offered. On a subsequent day, perhaps a day or two
after, Mr. Townley spoke of the intention of Messrs. Rich-
ardsou and Thompson with respect to the shares. He said
that they intended to sell the shares in the market, and on
that he (witness) reminded Mr. Townley of what had been
said before. He said, " I thought that they were to replace
a lot of 50 shares which had been purchased from Mr. W.
Roskell." Mr. Townley said that that was originally Messrs.
Richardson and Thompson's intention; but since they had
become insolvent, they would not do so, as that would be
shewing an undue preference to Mr. Roskell. He (wit-
ness) could not say that he had asked for the name of the
transferee, or for the money ; but he certainly did mention
that they_ had not got the name of the transferree. On the,.
30th of January the shares were resold at £5 per share--a'
par. This was done in consequence of the instructions of
Mr. Vero, who haei entered into an obligation to pay the
callS in the month of January. The calls would fall due on
the Ist of February, and amounted to £25 per share, or
£1250 altqether, exclusive of interest. Mr. Thompson eidl,
ed on the £sth or 26th, and stated that he applied on behalf.
of the creditors, and that his assignees had not then been
appointed.
Mr. Charles James Townley stated, that, on the 24th of
January, he called at Messrs. Okill and Cooke's office, t°
have the contract completed. Mr. Cooke observed, that there
was a specific undcrstanding that the calls should be paid inv
mediately after the transfer. Witness replied, that he On'
dertook that the calls should be immediately paid. He w6,.1
told that Mr. Vero was out of town, and that nothing COo,'
be done until his return. On the 25th and 27th he went agaill'
On the latter day he was told that Mr. Vero had not yet
re-
turned, but that he would return on the 29th. He (witnos)
did not call on the 29th, as both Mr. Okill and Mr. Cooke
bad promised to let him know when Mr. Vero did return.
He met Mr. Cooke, on the Ist February, on the Stock EN'
change, and went with him to his office. Mr. Cooke then
told him that the shares had been resold. He then obtained
from Mr. Cooke a note stating that Mr. Vero was his princi-
pal. Nothing further was done till the assignees were are
pointed, and, after that, he went and tendered the purchase
money, £lBl ss. It was refused. He had made no acne!'
tender of the money before that tirne ; but lie had stated, -
from the first, that he was ready to lay down the money.
Cross-examined.—lt was, he believed, on the 20th Febi.,